Long Term Travel Review - RF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 июл 2024
- Over two years later, this compact RF 70-200 F4 is holding up great for my uses. While there are still things to be frustrated about in Canon's RF lens lineup, this particular lens is a strong offering.
• F4 vs. F2.8 | Canon RF...
• Canon RF 70-200 F4 - C...
Shop Moment Cineblooms (affiliate): moment.8ocm68.net/zanqPW
15% OFF at Lensrentals, Code - DANY15 (affiliate): bit.ly/dany15
0:00 - Canon RF 70-200 F4
1:11 - F4 vs F2.8
2:25 - Great for Two Lens Travel
4:00 - Bokeh & Backgrounds
6:44 - 4 Considerations (Durability, Vs. 400mm, The 70-105mm Overlap, Lightroom & Noise)
-----
Subscribe for more Reviews, Travel, & Canon
#canonrf #zoomlens #telephoto
-----
On Instagram - @dan.yosua
-----
I earn product credit or commission for referral and affiliate links that I share above.
Those small little things like when the camera zooms in and out at 2:47 when you zoom in the 24-105 is appreciated in the editing btw :)
Finally. I've been seen 🥹
Great video. Thanks for sharing these insights.
Thanks for watching! Are you considering snagging this?
You're my influence at buying the 24-105. And now that I struggle between 70-200 F4 and 2.8 (coz FOMO, lol!), I find that amongst the reviews that I watched so far, yours made the most sense for me. With my 24-105, I do struggle in low light situations, but I get around them by using high ISO and LR's denoise tool. And the results can be usable if not excellent. LR also now has Blur effect, which can make an image out of F4 like it was taken from a prime. I also had the chance of trying out both the 70-200 versions at a local Canon event, and 2.8 was significantly heavier and I think all your points considered, F4 is the better choice for me.
It's awesome that you had a chance to try both - it's what I did and it really helps to understand how much larger the f2.8 is. For some it won't be an issue at all, but for those on the fence, it's the fastest way to know for sure if you see yourself using it. And the tooling keeps getting better like you said! It's even easier to lean toward the F4 today in 2024 than it was in 2021.
you make some smart choices on kit, great results from the photos!
Thanks, I'm trying! It's been a lot of research and waiting and tweaking over the last few years. These days, I'm feeling good about my core 4 lenses right now with the 28/85 and the 24-105/70-200.
Excellent thoughts on f4 vs f 2.8. I went down the same path and I'm really happy ! Thanks !
Great to hear!
This is a fantastic video even if you don’t shoot Canon.
The compromises you make between zoom range vs aperture, prime lens vs zoom lens, and compact travel kits vs “having options” are all covered comprehensively and concisely while representing a more realistic use case (over an extended period of time) that’s lacking on RUclips.
Thanks for taking the time to make this video.
Thanks for taking the time to leave a comment. Sometimes I can tell by the numbers, but it's REALLY helpful to get feedback like this about the type/style. I can't get into embargo-day type reviews at my size, and I think there's a lot of room for talking about equipment over the long haul as we discover and shoot with it. If people keep watching, I'll keep making them!
I did own both and would hands down recommend the 70-200 F4 above the F2.8 lens. Lighter, cheaper, same image quality. Bokeh >100mm is buttery smooth with any lens if you know how to place your subject in the scene (as you explained).
I ended up selling both though as I mainly use the 24-105 for everything I do. I am considering the 100-400mm for landscape shots.
That extra 70-105mm can really get a lot done in terms of an all-in-one when compared to just the 24-70. I got my 100-400 through Canon refurb... might be a good idea to peruse that occasionally if you aren't on a strict time table.
I got the EF 70-200 f4 and I never encountered a situation where I needed faster. On the other hand, I've lugged around lenses that I wished were lighter.
For the price difference, I got a bunch of primes. Winning.
If you want a faster lens, stop walking.
Start running 😤
Hi Dan! I just bought the 70-200 f4 rf refurbished for $1350 on canons site and did a first impressions video along with testing it against the Tamron 70-200 2.8 g2. I'm ridiculously impressed by it and love the portability. I'm about to go disc golfing with my kids and will bring that out with me where as the g2 would never go traveling with me. Btw...I've already been selling gear in my head so I can justify the 135 1.8 rf 😉 The sigma 135 1.8 is an option too. It's that or waiting a bit to pick up a r5c.
Nice, I just checked it out! The portability is excellent. I rarely feel like it's too big to bring unless I'm trying to stay ultralight. And I appreciate the pack size - the 100-400 is very light, but I'm finding that lens a bit awkward to place in my ICUs because of the thinner/longer footprint.
B&H had it new for $1299 this week, I picked it up there. It's also $1170 refurb from Canon w/ loyalty program
I have the RF 14-35mm f4 and RF 70-200 f4 and they’ve been amazing for travel.
Those two and nifty 50 would be an excellent trio. I was intrigued by the 14-35 when it came out, still kinda am, but ultimately decided against it. Perhaps not forever. That's something I'd like to rent for a longer, photo-focused trip though.
@@DanYosua Agreed re: the 50mm as a third, and yes you have to give the 14-35mm a good go - it’s more versatile than the primes you’ve mentioned, compact and light, and very sharp! 👌
I just know I'd miss the wide open look for this a-roll shot, and for occasional astro. I often find myself missing something around 18 or 20mm though.
I've owned both, and although I prefer the ergonomics of the f/4, I ended up selling it and keeping the 2.8. I use it for sports and events mainly, but also portraits. It actuality rivals the 85 1.2 (if you're at 200mm) and 135. It just has some really nice bokeh and falloff.
Sounds like you have the perfect set of use cases for the 2.8 to be perfectly versatile 🙌
When I went to Ireland british airways lost our luggage and my camera was checked in. I am never checking in my camera again. Thank you for this video. You earned a subscribe from me!
Ahh, sorry to hear, it's one of my big fears. Thanks for watching!
@@DanYosua You're so handsome. It's easy to watch your videos!!
Never ever check expensive electronics. Always carry on!
Nice review
Actually even without using the lens…..by looking at wildlife photographers with their 500 f4 600 f4 800 f5.6 you already know this little Canon gem is more than fast enough at 200mm.
Haha at least for outside! Wish I had something that long that was also an F4 or F5.6
I have the F2.8 because I do events in dim light. For every other use I'd take the F4, especially travel.
Events is a great reason to go f2.8
I use the f4 for events and concerts honestly it works great
Good advice. I went for all 2.8s, and when on a long hike, I sometimes regret it :)
For how much I talk about trying to stay light and compact, the good news is that carrying the f2.8 *probably* won't kill ya 😉
Since I haven't had the extra budget to get either yet, I have been using an older Tamron 70-200/2.8 EF lens with an adapter, and it's great, but SO heavy. I'll most likely sell that at some point and get the f/4 RF lens.
I know it can be frustrating when you're saving and waiting to pull the trigger on something. But the good news is that you'll have a strong idea of your needs vs. wants for this lens and can shoot the Tamron at f4 while you have it to make sure it works for you. Not to mention you'll already be comfortable with your body when you get it. And either way you go you'll shave probably a pound 🙌
My combo is the 35 1.8 and the 70-200 f4. I don’t need anything else for both photo and video. Occasionally I wish I had a bit more reach but realistically you end up dealing with a lot of environmental haze the farther the lens can see, so images take a dip in detail and sharpness because of that. 200 is a mighty fine focal length.
Killer combo - do you ever want wider than 35mm for what you shoot? If those were my only two I'd have some fomo on the wider end myself
@@DanYosua very rarely. There are times here and there where I wish I had a 24mm for video, but the 35 is usually wide enough. I love what the 35 produces for video, it’s just such a nice looking focal length.
The 24mm, 35mm f1.8 and 85mm f2 Macro lenses combined with the 70-200 f4 is a killer combination. Those non-L macros are all sharper than the 24-105 L with the added bonus of much better low light performance and decent macro capabilities.
7:26 whaaaaaatttttt🤯? Danny Yo with the heat!
Hoping to really get into that lens and give it a good test soon, feeling out of my element at 300 and 400 😅
I've decided to sell my EF 70-200mm L IS III USM for the RF version because the size and weight of the internal zoom metal DSLR lens made me not always carry it. The lens I don't have with me can't take pictures when I'm out, so I had to trade the superb sealing of an internal zoom with the size and weight benefits of an external zoom. Be realistic with yourself about what you're willing to carry for hours at a time when you go out. Sometimes the big heavy lenses with wide maximum apertures aren't the best fit for your needs.
If I was recording dirt bikes going through tracks kicking up dust then the internal zoom would be the far better choice, but that's not what I'm doing with it.
"Be realistic with yourself about what you're willing to carry for hours at a time when you go out."
Great call. Especially for those like me jumping into one of these as a first long lens. It's a tough call without a prior weight comparison equivalent.
@@DanYosua the Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary lens for Canon EF mount was the first lens that taught me that lesson. It was like carrying a two-liter bottle with big glass pieces in it. That's the lens that made me get a new tripod because my old tripod head was bending under the weight. It was definitely a learning opportunity.
🤣 I've still never used it, but I can imagine
I'm still going to wait and see what Canon does with this rumored variable teleconverter. If it is fairly affordable and somehow works with the 70-200 f/2.8 then that changes the dynamic for versatility vs weight & size (for a price of course).
That's a great point, I'm interested to see what happens there. If it doesn't work with the current 70-200, hopefully it will in a few years with a new ii.
My Tamron 70-200/2.8 G2 is basically "stuck" at f/4 for improved sharpness.
It still is VERY sharp at f/2.8. But I only open the aperture all the way if I actually need to.
That being said, with the high ISO performance of modern mirrorless cameras you absolutely can get away with f/4. And as long as it's nice and sharp while also being compact I would be perfectly fine with a 70-200/4!
Indeed, I would love to have the option if the f2.8 was the same size, but F4 is still pretty solid these days.
Great vid Dan! I’ve been recently thinking of upgrading the f4 to f2.8, but I think I’ll hold off for a while still. The 70-200 f4 and 85mm f1.4 combo for sports or events is quite great, although the Samyang 85mm struggles quite a bit to keep up with the R5 shooting speed :/
That's a good point for people considering - I've rarely used my 85 for fast action, but when I have, it's much lower hit rate in high speed shooting than something built for action.
What kind of sports? I am hoping a 24-105 f/4 could hold me over until I got some f/2.8
@@williamgollatz1911 hockey and softball! The softball games are in the evenings, and hockey is played in the arena so in both situations light becomes scarce. I gotta crank the iso pretty high with the F4 since my shutter speed takes priority. The 70-200 keeps up with shooting speed, but not the Samyang 85mm. I’ll be upgrading to the 2.8 this summer.
I think you can get by with the F4 if you don’t need to crank your iso too high. Lightroom’s Denoise AI helps a ton with this. While editing, I flag all the ones that need denoise treatment in red, and once I’m done editing I select all the flagged ones and Denoise them all and let my computer sit for a while
@jaylauz this is a great workflow tip because while great, the Denoise AI does take a few seconds per photo even on fast machines. And idk about you, but I find that I usually use a pretty consistent ~35ish for photos that I use it on, rarely going above 50.
@@DanYosua same, I never go more than 50%!
70-200 F4 L or 24-105 F4 L with RP for Landscape? Pls help
I have the EF 70-200/2.8 and love it especially as I shoot sports and use the extender now and then. Rented the RF version and I prefer the zoom ring near the outside as the f4 version has. No way am I’m in a hurry to replace the ef version since as getting the 0.71x it’s like having 3 in one lol.
0.71x, is it really that much? If so I definitely missed that, and a nice advantage to keeping the EF.
Im actually in the process of getting the f4 while owning the 2.8
My "problem" is that i do a lot of types of photography, the 2.8 is epic BUT... if you do hiking landscapes like me, and if you are like me and have more success with longer focal lenghs in those scenarios than wide... the weight is a consideration.
So i even own a Fujifilm X-T30ii i bought to have a "throw in the bag" camera for when i wont take a camera with me, and even while having the x-t50 on preorder... its for a different scenario.
The XT is for when i dont plan to bring my chunker R5 but want to have something photography in my non camera bag. While the R5 goes on hikes wheni know i go alone and go for the purpose of capturing my trip... and saving 3-400g on weight... for someone not super sporty... yea its a very good argument. Plus on landscapes i rarely utilize the 2.8.
If id take one lense i rather go with the 24-105 f4 than the 24-70 f2.8 for example.
Long ramble, im going to get the f4 along the 2.8 each has their place. But especially if you hike or travel, size and weight at similar sharpness just a bit less light intake is very well worth it.
Haha if you use em enough and can swing both, power to ya! Would be awesome to have the f2.8 tucked away for when you need it. I haven't had much time to learn about the xt50 yet, is that similar to the x100vi but interchangeable?
@@DanYosua I agree totally with you, if one doesnt really know that he needs the f2.8, the f4 is the much better option. These days i would recommend the 50 1.2 85 1.2 or 135 1.8 over the 70-200 2.8 IF someone wants"that" separation. The 2.8 is great but you need to know why you want the 2.8 (as i said, e.g. events or sports where you dont know the distance but light wont be good but getting the shot framed is more important than a low iso shot)
The XT-50 is sort of the x100vi but with interchangable lenses. The xt30ii lays in the hand really good for its size (i was surprised! ) and the xt50 doesnt look like they changed much (not needed!). I had the chance to handle the Nikon Zfc from a friend and it never felt comfortable in my hand.
If you just want a camera for pure shooting fun but some flexibility over the x100vi, get the 50... buy the 3 f2 primes and enjoy.
Thanks Dan. I own this lens and happy w it. $1100 Black Friday bargain.
the 2.8 blur would be a touch nicer at some of the sports events. I shoot that have busy backgrounds. I prefer to get the shot right in Camera rather than spend time at the computer manipulating it with masks..
Great snag! I do too - but it's easier for someone like me to turn to software tools as I'm not usually shooting sports and events and I don't end up with massive catalogs for each outing. But if those make up a good deal of your shooting, and you're dumping hundreds of shots... post-processing bloat would not be ideal 😬
Hello Dan ! 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 and 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 the lenses are the 14-35 f4 and the 24 105 f4. For wildlife I already have another specific TV. Thank you very much and greetings from Barcelona.
The 100-400 gives you the opportunity to get some monster reach on the R7 in a compact way. But if that's not particularly exciting, or if your other wildlife lens covers that, then I like the versatility of having 70 on the wide end of the 70-200 in that choice.
@@DanYosua Thank you so much for your response.
Hi Dan! I recently got a 70-200 f4. Would you choose 14-35f4 or 24-105f4, if you could only choose one more zoom?
I have a few primes atm. 16, 28, and 50. I have 24-105 f4-7.1 kit lens and the 70-200 f4.
Ive been thinking of upgrading the 24-105, but im worried if the roles for the 24-105 are too similiar to 70-200.
I would obviously love to have the f4 trio, but there is no point if im not going to use em.
So which zoom would choose, if you were in my shoes? 🤔
I might be an oddball, but I really like the 70-105mm overlap as it prevents me from doing a lot of lens switching. For my shooting, I most like this when I pack both for travel or have both with me in a bit of rain or snow. Or anywhere I'm not looking to swap lenses often. So as to answering that, I would just try to take mental notes on how much or little you care for that overlap with your existing 24-105.
I've steered clear of the 14-35 myself so far because ultimately I'm pretty sure I want the 15-35mm there. I want the option of using it for astro and it would be my main video lens for RUclips. My Sigma 28mm vid sort of explains the thought process. So the thing I would think about in your setup is would you be selling the wide primes to consolidate? Or would you keep them for compact, low-light options.
You've got yourself a pretty tough call 😅 I might just shoot more until you run into distinct frustrations/limitations that you can pinpoint (or if you can't). Gonna come down to how much you want weather sealing, if you want to consolidate, or if the darker aperture on the current 24-105 is a problem.
I’m thinking of getting this exact lens and your review has really pushed me on the edge. My question to you, if you had the RF 24-70mm f2.8, would you trade it in for the RF 70-200mm f4 and the RF 35mm f1.8?
I appreciate your opinion !
That's gonna be a real tough call for someone to make for ya, but if you find you don't use the 24mm end that much, you want to go lighter for travel, and are craving longer than the 70mm end... it could be a good move. The 70-200 F4 and a wide fast prime is a great combo. The 35mm served me well for a long time, but I gravitated toward 28mm over the last year, and the Sigma EF was what I went for to get weather sealing at that end. If you don't care much about weather sealing, nothing to worry about. Only other thing I'd consider - If the 24-70 is your only/main lens and you are not used to having to switch lenses often, that may initially feel annoying at times.
@@DanYosua Really appreciate your input Dan! I own the RF 50mm f1.2, RF 85mm f2 and the RF 24-70mm f2.8. I’m getting into sports photography but also do a lot of landscape photography. I know I’d miss the 24-35 focal length for sure. 28 seems like a solid compromise if I do end up trading in the RF 24-70mm. Man, this is such a tough decision but I think I’ll move ahead with the 70-200 f4. It’ll serve a lot of purpose for what I’m trying to accomplish.
I just discovered your page and it’s excellent. Definitely earned a sub. Keep pushing 👊🏾
Good luck, and thanks so much. Will keep making em if people keep watching!
as someone who does concert photography and lowlight stuff with the R8 & 70-200 EF MKII do you think swapping to the RF F4 would impact my lowlight photos or should they still hold up and make a good difference?
I bet that lens on the R8 with the adapter starts feeling pretty long/unbalanced, but if it were me, I might miss the extra stop in those types of use cases if I was used to it. If you're not really lugging the lens around all that much compared to travel/hiking then it might make sense to hold on.
You probably could get away with it, but it might make sense to rent for one shoot to get a feel for the light and size difference.
@@DanYosua an amazing response thank you so much! I’m so used to the weight that it doesn’t bother me really so size/weight doesn’t play too much of a factor. I guess i’ll just wait for my time to come when I get the funds for the rf 2.8! Thank you again :)
That sounds like a good plan! I'd take a look in a year, next BFCM time period. They took a good chunk off this year. Next year will probably be similar and there might be rumors of a refresh by then so you might even have some options on the native RF mount.
Hello Dan, I am looking at taking up aviation filming with a Canon R6mk2 and want a great lens to compliment the camera for HD 60fps. Would you recommend this lens for this or would you recommend something else? Can a also use a RF 2.0x teleconverter for a larger range? thank you for your advice.
It can’t accept the teleconverters unfortunately so if that’s critical I might skip (or hold off, as the next gen might). The 100-400 might also be worth a look but I haven’t done any aviation shooting myself.
@@DanYosua thank you for your advice Dan. Kindest regards Edi
@edicant1967 no problem! Good luck with the choice
My current gear is the 14-35 f4L , 70-200 f4L , i dont need f2.8 for my zoom lens , when i need faster lens , i have my 50 f1.2L..
That's an excellent, versatile trio! Can't wait to try the 14-35 and 50 for myself.
@@DanYosua yes u should!
About how far away (feet) can the 200mm reach and still be fast? How does focal length translate to distance in feet.
I've seen 100 review between this and the f2.8 and others. Everyone says 2.8 for sports, or action photography. I shot an entire lacrosse season on a on old borrowed dslr efs 55-250 with an adaptor on a EOS R body. It wasn't sports illustrated level but with Lightroom, i got some good shots for my HS team. I now own my own EOS R7 body (xmas gift) and I need a first and versatile lens. Is this it or is there one slightly better for about same price?
Not sure exactly what you mean when you reference still being fast at distance. Also hard to relate feet, but I would try to gauge how well you liked the previous focal length, or how much time you spent maxed out at 250mm on the R. I have used this indoor for ice hockey once on the R6, mostly ISO 6400, and before AI Denoise in LR. Like you were saying, not great stuff, but not that bad either, I have a video on it. And I used it on the R6 for HS field hockey, fine from a light perspective in day games, rough at night. And I wanted more reach on that field.
I actually just rented an R7 this week, and I look forward to testing this lens on it more as I believe it's probably Canon's best/cheapest combo to get a constant F4 to an effective reach of ~320mm. So far, it's nice to have some extra megapixels on the R7, but initial impressions are that the noise is definitely different than the R6. 3200 on the R7 feels like 6400 on the R6, maybe even a tad higher. So trying to nail exposure in low light environments will be more important.
If this R7 is gonna be your go-to combo for a long time, this is most of what you shoot, and you plan to shoot indoors, I would consider the f2.8. Or adapt a EF 70-200 f2.8 if you can find one in good shape for much less. I rented the f2.8 at the time I bought this to be sure (vid on that as well).
Thanks for the reply. With lacrosse, I was shooting mostly at the goal line about 80 feet on average from the action. Constant movement. I liked the reach of that 250mm lens, but got a lot of noise, and since it is always played outside and often in bad hs stadium lighting or weather, I had trouble getting crisp images. Hence me thinking a faster lens would help. I'm still learning. R7 will be my main and likely lifelong camera and plan to use for travel and adventure photography as well. Just looking for something versatile to start. Seems like the 70-200f4 is that.
@@DanYosua
@@powertentraining4711 If travel and adventure are also a big part, then I would start with this, and see how it does for the lacrosse. Because this is considerably smaller. For the sports, as you practice, see if keeping your shutter speed close to 1/1000 helps if you weren't trying that already. You might be able to go a little slower, but I was finding I could pretty much freeze the motion of a hockey stick at 1/1000 resulting in crisper images. And anything slower than 1/500 may have some blur when running or on the ball.
Thank you!
Quick question! Does the third image in the video was shot at f8?
The building? That was F4 at night.
@@DanYosuathe second image sorry! The guy hiking
Yup! The mountains in the background are just forever away. It’s a good example of how you can still get some subjects to pop if you can maneuver yourself in a way to put distance behind your subject and the next thing in frame behind them!
@@DanYosua yeah! Nice work!!!
Lighter weight and great image quality, for me the f4 was a no-brainer...................I did succumb to 2.8 for the 15-35 though
I really wrestled with the RF 15-35mm for a long time. Debatably still am 😅 I'm finding the fast 28mm and the 24mm end of my 24-105 get me by fairly happily for most things wide.
@@DanYosua The 24-105 f4 is rarely off my camera, great everyday lens
@@nigelwest3430 Indeed!
F4 SWEEP
On my R5c I use the 24-105 for EVERYTHING. I have the 50mm 1.8 for some other options. I’m itching to get one more lens for now for travel and to do some landscapes and photographing my daughter. I’m not worried about 1 stop or light the massive price difference is what’s drawing my decision. I like the smaller lighter size too. I try to keep my peak design back pack minimal as possible. If I want something longer I could look at a 300 or 400 EF lens prime.
OR
I go with the 85mm or 135mm for those portrait looks peob the 135 bc of IS and video usage. And then add the 100-500mm
Haha lot to consider there! Knowing how often you might want to reach beyond 200 could help you eventually decide. I'm slowly getting familiar with the RF 100-400 as I work on that video. It's pretty fun and longer lengths are relatively new to me. The 100-500 is probably the lens I actually want. I've used the 100-400 long enough to know that's a lens I'd prefer the weather sealing on, and the extra reach would be welcome on the R6. Right now, I definitely can't swing it - I decided to prioritize a computer. And I'd have some pause on what to do with the 70-200 if I ever pick one up 😅
@@DanYosua yeah I would say maybe 10% of photos I would utilize that focal range. Why is prob just get a 70-200 now and when my daughter starts playing sports or I can always rent a 100-500 when needed or scoop up a 300/400 EF lens
24-240?
After you’ve owned this lens for 2 years, have you noticed any discolouring on the len’s body? Since it is made out of plastic (good quality plastic though). Debating if i should sell my ef 70-200 f/2.8 III, but the build on that lens is like a tank and still looks brand new. Just wanted your long term knowledge on the rf lens.
I haven't noticed any discoloring at all, but I suppose it might be possible? It would be tough to know for sure without a brand new copy to compare against. I wasn't coming from any prior 70-200, but if it were me, and I had the EF iii, I'd probably hold tight. With the caveat that I'm hardly ever reaching for this particular lens for any side freelance shooting I still might do. And I'm not getting paid to travel 😂 So if you can work around the bigger size, that's what I'd be doing unless I could sell for a pretty good deal.
Anyone use the RF 135mm yet??
Back in dslr still keeping the 135 F2L EF, and I don’t plan to upgrade to the RF one. My main portrait lens is the RF 85 1.4 Rokinon/Samyang.
I’m using the 135 one handed for indoor sport (even ice hockey) barely cropping, or traveling (with the 24-105 STM)
I can’t shoot one hand with my EF 70-200 2.8L mark 1, I don’t plan to upgrade it to RF 2.8.
This 70-200 F4L would be perfect for traveling, but overlapping with a 24-105, but that form factor is insane
Its on my wishlist for indoor sports
That 85 is so light, I love it for candid portraits while hiking. I think I'd like the extra reach outside for sure... but the 135mm might be heavy enough that I wouldn't pack it as often.
Yes, it's a stellar lens for both sports and portraits. However...the 70-200 2.8 gets more use for me.
i just got it for my BD, and will use it on my first wedding shoot in a week. I tested it in a landscape scenario and the DOF tricks you can do with it are amazing. Most just see it as a portrait lense but doing landscapes with 1.8 allows you to focus on something in the distance while still throwing stuff around it CLEARLY out of focus (not just a little).
Im also getting the chance to shoot a concer with dancers where in that low light scenario and fast movement the 135 1.8 will be able to show its muscles versus the 2.8 70-200.
Not discrediting the 70-200. If i didnt know what scenarios in a low light event i would have to deal with, 24-70 and 70-200 2.8, one on the r5 the other on the r6 and i would feel comfortable. But 1.8 or 1.2 is a different kind of game in event locations. I shot our last company wedding nearly exclusively with the 50 1.2 and didnt even realize it until i loaded it into lightroom. Photography opened my eyes to realize how bad lighting is in events while the attendee doesnt even notice how dim the light is.
TLDR: dont underestimate the 135 for landscapes, just need a different eye, and for anything else its a nuke of a lense.
How much reach difference is ther between 200mm and 400mm lens
I think it starts to really matter when you're way far in the distance, or you have tiny subjects like small birds. I was using the 400mm end more this week with the 100-400. Mostly for smaller birds, and even when close, I'm cropping. 200mm on an R5 sensor might give a bit more flexibility than on the R6 due to the MP difference. For social pics, cropping my R6 frames doesn't bother me much anyway. The 100-400 is a good value option to play on the longer end before investing deep in those longer lenses.
Too hard to choice. 😁
I had to rent the f2.8 to be more sure back in the day!
Doesn’t look like it is very sharp lens in my experience.
I haven't used many of the L primes, only the two 85mm's for a brief period, but I'd guess you'd maybe want to go the prime route then
The difference in sharpness against the f2.8 is noticeable zoomed in at 300% in Lightroom. Of course, prime lenses peak in this area 🔥
Olympus makes a 24-200mm f/4 IS lens (12-100 on M43) thats SHARPER, lighter, smaller, with image stabilization and cheaper than both the 24-105 and the 70-200mm. For most things, the Olly easily wins.... and for travel; this isn't even a contest, basically does what the 24-105mm does and the 70-200mm.... in ONE lens. Good luck arguing against this outside of bokeh from m43.
That said, congratulations, you've just found yourself a new travel kit :)
Haha not looking to argue, I already have my travel kit 😜 I'd need to try it out to see for sure, but I don't know if I would commit to OM quite yet. Interested in learning more though!