RF 70-200mm f2.8L VS f4.0L | EOS R5
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 июл 2024
- Which lens is best for you: RF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM or RF 70-200mm f4.0L IS USM??
RF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM - amzn.to/3AFWrVK
RF 70-200mm F4L IS USM - amzn.to/3i4tgED
Gear Used:
EOS R5 - amzn.to/3At7FNo
50mm f1.8 - amzn.to/2WWkk9i
Audio - Rode Videomicro - amzn.to/2U4iilN
Artlist.io | Sign up now for 2 months free - bit.ly/3kqs5yK
Artgrid.io | Sign up now for 2 months free - bit.ly/2DvdGRs
Buy me a ☕️ - Venmo - @tonymellinger
For Product/business inquiries: www.tonymellinger.com/take-ac... 
Кино
Thanks for the Video... I travel with R6 and RF24-70 F2.8 and RF70-200 F2.8 to Italy it was a great pleasure... Sometimes of course heavier then the F4....but however the F4 System is very good too. Greetings from Germany.
Great review. Thank you.
Thanks for watching!
Very good video and great comparison. Thank you
Glad I could help!
I just got the Rf 70-200 f4, and never really considered the 2.8 being the cost. You can get both the RF 24-105 f4 and the RF 70-200 f4 for the same cost of the 70-200 2.8. I would much rather have the 2 lenses with a range of 24-200 in L series lenses, then one 70-200 that weights almost as much as both. I'm more than likely getting the Rf 14-35 f4 next to complete my F4 trinity and skipping the 2.8's altogether. I too am very impressed with the image quality of the the RF L series lenses, even at F4 the quality seems to be better in most cases than what was achievable with the same lens with an EF mount, even with a lower aperture .
Yea! I hear you. It’s a hard setup to beat!
Ok, I have one scenario. 24-105 f4 and 70-200 f4, there is a huge overlap of 70-105. And below 70mm , you are left with 24mm, 35mm, 50mm. So if you take one 35mm f1.8 (yup STM) and 70-200 f2.8 L, it will cover all your needs very well until 200mm.
I’m always in doubt! I do a lot of mixed shooting but I love travel and landscapes, when possible.
It’s true that the f/4 is lighter, but if I need some help in low light things (I don’t like pushing my R6 as far, it does an amazing job but the 20mp means details are easily lost) and halving the ISO sounds great. Furthermore, while I save some weight with the f/4, I might have to bring a dedicated, longer portrait lens (like an 85 f2 or such, which could results in more weight and space taken… I’m so torn!! (The idea of a two lens travel setup with 15-35 and 70-200 f2.8s sounds sooooo good)
Great video !
That’s always the struggle. My thought is if f4 is too dark, f2.8 won’t be that much better and I need to get into primes. But then we’re back to more weight. Usually I bring a 24-105, 70-200 and then a small prime like a 50mm f1.8 or 35mm f1.8 for low light.
I bought the f4 version 3 weeks ago when in the US (I live in Australia). Got a better deal from a local camera store than what B&H and so on could offer me. I also have the EF70-200 f2.8L ii lens. It feels like it weighs twice as much and twice the length of the RF70-200f4. At least, that's how it felt when I had the two side by side.
I probably committed one of the photographer's cardinal sins by stowing the EF70-200 into my checked luggage. But I had no choice. My carry-one was full and overweight. Thankfully neither Qantas nor American Airlines got me to weigh the carry-one.
I'm heading to the UK in 2 weeks. I've packed the R6 and the RF70-200, along with a 16mm and the 24-105L lenses. With my essentials packed and the iPad Pro 12.9 in the carry-one (a Manfrotto wheeled camera bag) it comes to 8.2kg (or about a million pounds if you still measure things in cubits). But I'm debating whether or not to take the 70-200. Will see closer to the date.
Most of our travels, apart from airlines will be bus and train so we can't afford to have heavy luggage. Dunno how backpackers do it, seriously.
Anyway, as for the f4 70-200 it's a great lens insofar as photography goes. I've not experienced the need for stopping down lower than f4 so far. IBIS and lens IS seem to handle the slower required shutter speeds OK if I keep the ISO as low as possible. But most of my shooting will be landscapes, streetscapes and maybe some indoor stuff (museums, art galleries and so on where photography, or even flash photography is allowed - I have the Canon EL-100 flash.
But if I'm at home and travelling by car then anything goes. I'll throw in a lot of my lenses. If I use them, fine. If I don't, no biggie.
such a great video and great presentation. since having kids, i've been struggling with primes vs. zooms. I don;t need to f1.2 bokeh everything when i'm chasing my kids around for candids. with your suggestions and reasoning, the f4 over f2.8 might be a good option for a light weight kit for me. thanks for the great video and new sub here!
Thanks for watching. I’d agree, if you dont need the extra light, I’d highly recommend the f4
Perfect review, for me travel Photography I will opt for the F4, and yes the 24-105 is One of the best lenses to have
I think you've persuaded me to get the F4 Thanks!
I do love the f4. It’s so tiny and packs a hard punch!
Thanks for this video, Tony. I currently have the 2.8, but LOVE the the ergonomics of the f4 version. It's so inline with the 14-35 and 24-105 f4s, with zoom ring in the same spot vs. the 2.8. Question for you: you mentioned the f4 needs a filter to complete weather sealing, but I don't that see that mentioned in the lens instructions (like the EF 50 1.2L does). Did you read that somewhere?
Pretty much all lenses are like that. The rear is sealed but the front needs an EV filter on it to completely seal the lens.
Had version 1 and 2 of the EF 2.8. Bought the RF f/4 because it was on sale for $1099. Thought I would miss the bokeh of the 2.8, but really I have been loving the f/4 wide open for outdoor sports.
And it’s so small! It’s incredible!
Great stuff 👍👍👍 I would love a video on the upcoming RF 100-400. Specs are a bit slow, but I wonder how the IS will compensate.
We shall see, curious about that one as well.
I recently had sold my EF 70-200 F4 and was looking to replace that focal range with an RF version. I was torn between the f4 and the more expensive and heavier f2.8 version. I realized a couple of things. First, for what I mostly shoot, my previous EF f4 lens was more than adequate. There were very few instances where I really "needed" a brighter lens, in which case I always had my trusty EF 135 f2 and 50mm f1.4 (both of which I'm keeping and using with Adaptors). Also, with my R5, I'm able to compensate with higher ISO and not really suffer too much from Noise. Secondly, I do a lot of hiking to shoot landscapes and the more compact f4 version of the RF lens is great for that purpose. Most of the time I'm stopping down anyway.
In the end, I decided that for my use cases, and not being a professional, the RF 70-200 f4 was the logical choice. I ended up buying that lens on sale and at the same time I also bought a refurbished RF 85 f2 and still had hundreds left over compared to the cost of RF 2.8 version. I am very happy with my decision. I love the compactness and light weight of the RF 70-200 f4 - it's a joy to shoot and makes a great walk about lens to boot.
Yea that 70-200f4 is a great lens! Most people don’t need to spend the money on the f2.8
I own the 2.8…. Man the pictures are soooooo great with this lens 🤗 it‘s my favorite lens! Buyed it befor the F4 came out 😉
I agree with you. Did the same thing, and love the image out of it!!
Great review, Tony. Does it make any sense to use the 2x extender with this lends on the C70?
Unfortunately, you cant use the extenders with either the RF 70-200s
As a lover of wildlife photography, MY holy trinity would probably be the 24-70, 70-200, and 100-500. That said, I might just start out with the 24-105L and 100-500
Yea for sure. The 24-105 is very versatile. That 100-500 is intriguing. I may take it with me to Africa in a few months
---
I'm considering purchasing the 70-200 f/4 lens. I shoot at events, sometimes in conference rooms where it is darker. Do you think it will perform well in such conditions? I can boost the ISO and use a flash. This would be my second lens, the first being the 24-70 f/2.8. I work with the Canon R6 II.
I’m fresh and just picked up a Eos 800d (7ti I think) to have something to start with and I’m buying a camera so I can take pictures of my daughter and her Spanish partner who are dancing ballroom/Latin and it can be pretty dim but I don’t want to spend a fortune! I’m thinking about upgrading to something older but a full frame later on like the Eos 5d mk3 or 6d mk2.
Will the f4 be good enough you think?
How do you like the control ring being on the back of the 70-200 f/2.8 vs being on the front of the f/4 lenses?
I honestly prefer it back because i never accidentally grab the focus ring instead of the control ring. I do wish there was a standard place for the control ring, with in the front or back. Still a useful tool on the lenses!
Hey, great video man. I'm gona be doing mostly dog photography at the minute, mostly 4k slow mo videos and portrait shots - outdoors in bright settings. I'm using an R6. One of the guys that inspired me to do it uses the 2.8. I'm kind of set on the F4 due to price, do you think there'd be much of a noticeable difference between the 2 for this specifically ?cheers
Also they will primarily be uploaded to Instagram, so i was thinking any difference there would be should surely be lost due to to compression? im kind of new to photography so a bit clueless lol.
I think you’ll be able to get very good results. The only disadvantage would be the low light performance
What are the times that the f2.8 is an asset for you? I lean towards f2.8 to fill out the trinity, but I’m not 100% sure how often I would use the f2.8 aspect as opposed to just having f4. I do landscapes with the occasional (personal) family photos.
I use 2.8 for shooting individual portraits and quite a bit for video, but also shoot on the 24-105 a ton at f4 and really like it.
Thanks!
2.8 is always better...more money but better. It's just a tool and I always want the best. My father was a mechanic and used Snap-On because the quality and superiority was there. 2.8 is the Snap On of lenses compared to f4
@@timelesscreations777 although I agree with you the 2.8 is always better... but sometimes not the best. a good example of this is a 12v ratcheting wrench can fit in places an 18v ratcheting wrench cant fit... sometimes you need the smaller, cheaper f4, it fits better in your kit and works for your needs.
@@TonyMellinger Tony I 👍
@Tony Mellinger; I’m trying to decide between the F4 & F2.8 RF 70-200 for 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 in more open type environments because the subject will probably 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!
Personally, I’d you’re not making money with the lens, I wouldn’t spend the extra money on the 2.8. It’s bigger, heavier and more expensive AND you can get such incredible images out of the 4.0. Just my thoughts.
@@TonyMellinger thank you for your response. I haven’t used anything at that focal length other than on my crop sensor T6S with the kit lens that went to 135mm (216 full frame equivalent) but that was such a long time ago. My worry is inside environments but since my son hasn’t been to any of those activities before I have no idea about how much lighting there will actually be.
@@TonyMellinger I’ll probably be better off with the F4 version of the 70-200 and upgrading my 24-70 to a F2.8 since that lens lives on my camera. Once again, I appreciate your input and time.
@@kore996 yea I agree with you. No problem!
How is the Canon RF 70-200 f2.8 for astrophotography?
Is the coma reduced?
I'm torn between f2.8 and f4
Good question, I’ve never used other for Astro. Sorry, can’t help you there
What would you recommend for high school baseball at night? The field has really good lights
All depends on budget. You could probably get by with the f4 version, your iso might be a little higher tho
Hi Tony! Great vid! I have a R6 and my daughter does gymnastics. I’m a hobbyist at best but also need something to shoot my artwork with. Do you think I can get by with the 70-200mm f/4 and still be able to capture good shots with indoor sports bad lighting situations? Any help or guidance is appreciated! Thx!
Ooof. Indoor sports with bad lighting situations are the worst! Most gyms are super hard to shoot in. What i would suggest is shoot now at F4 (or higher) and see how it treats you. The biggest advantage of the f2.8 version will just be light. I think the glass quality of the f4 70-200 is great. I’m fine with pushing the ISO on my R6 and happy with the results, I know some people aren’t as much. For reference, my MAIN lens is the 24-105 f4 and I very seldom have trouble with the F4. Sure, I’d wish it was 2.8, but the reach of the 105 is worth more to me than a 24-70 f2.8. And it’s extra stop of light. If I’m in a low light situation, that extra stop isn’t going to help me and I’ll jump on something much faster like a 50mm f1.2 or the new 135mm f1.8L.
I often shoot indoor gymnastics and F2.8 all the way. The lighting is always bad.
The only thing I hate about my F2.8 is the zoom ring travel. You cant zoom in our out with a singe twist of the wrist like you could with the EF versions. The collar also gets in the way of twist so I've taken mine off. I shoot fast moving cyclist traveling towards me, so its taken some time to get used to.
You wish the zoom throw was faster? I could get behind that. You have to really really twist your wrist to get the whole focal length on it. I do much prefer it over the EF 70-200 though just by packability. It’s easier to have the lens with me because i can pack it.
Was the event you went to in Springfield called “Jeep’n for a Cure”?
This event was Jeepstock at SMORR
I’m so torn on what lens to get , I have my r6 has a hobby camera only . I have 2 z6’s for jobs . I currently have the 35 1.8 which I love but the fact that it doesn’t have weather sealing sucks . Been looking and have considered the 24-105 , I would love to have the 50 1.2 but have a hard time justifying the price and this . I shoot a lot of landscape , street at night and random stuff . Great video tho .
I love the RF 24-105. If you’re looking for versatility, it’s hard to beat. I also have the 50mm f1.2 and it’s just so stinking expensive. It is a beautiful lens though!
@@TonyMellinger I’m low key leaning towards the 70-200 f4 just because of the reach . Ugh this is so annoying lol I almost pulled the trigger on the 15-35 2.8 yesterday but backed out last minute because it’s just so damn wide . I swear Im my own worst enemy lol .
@@TonyMellinger I just follows you on IG , same handle as on here .
@@socialbender thanks so much!!
@@socialbender I struggled with the 15-35mm f2.8L. it was just too wide for me, I didn't like it. the RF70-200mm f4 is an amazingly small and powerful lens, love it!
Would you use the RF F4 for a wedding ceremony vs the the EF 2.8?
Personally I’d shoot it at f4 to make sure the bride and groom are both in focus. Some people shoot even higher aperture to get the officiant in focus as well. In that case, the 2.8 wouldn’t even matter during the ceremony.
Depends if you are indoors or not
Do you shoot a lot of weddings with the F4? How does it handle low light?
I just got the same question
My second shooter uses the RF 24-105 F4 and one of my second even uses the 70-200 F4. They work pretty well. Low light does become a problem during the reception but I typically light the dances and speeches, etc. so it still works for that. It would be crowd shots and candids it wouldn’t work well with. You could use the 24-105 F4 for most of the day and then switch to the 50mm f1.8 if you’re looking for an economical alternative.
The 70-200 f4 isn’t typically a problem for the ceremony because there’s lots of light on a church platform usually. If it’s outside same thing…. Lots of light.
Thank you so much for the respond 😊 greetings from Joplin, Missouri
Hello, I'm Brazilian, I liked your video but I'm very confused. please help me . I'm going to buy the RF 85 1.2, and I'm looking for another RF Zoom, or 70 200 2.8 or 70 200 F4. which one makes sense to buy???? would be to photograph and film outdoors
If you have the money, get the 2.8. The 70-200 will work just as well with the light outdoors though!
Hi looking down into glass. Why does the lens ring move around? I can feel and hear the inside move side to side. Is this normal?
I’m not entire sure, but I’m guessing it’s either the auto focus or lens image stabilization.
@@TonyMellinger Does the ring you see through your glass move?
It the IS. When the lens is off the body , it will seem loose. Turn on the IS on the camera ,powered up, and it will be solid as a rock@@kathydenton6395
Here is my situation....I have the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 G2. It is a fantastic lens, however it is heavy and huge. Thinking of getting the f4 version but don't want to lose the extra stop of light. Decisions decisions. 😆
What Camera are you shooting on? Most of these R series cameras can handle ISO all the way up to at least 10,000. I never worry too much about low light unless there’s no light ha! The f4 70-200 is very light and small, absolutely love it!
@@TonyMellinger Thanks for the reply Tony. I am shooting on the EOS R and 6D MkII as a back up.
I’m exactly in this situation. Thinking about getting the f4 and keeping the amazing Tamron for events only.
These days you can even add nice creamy bokeh in post too, or enhance what’s there.
We have the technology!
Biy the 2.8 if you can afford it, the f4 if you have no other choice.
I could get behind that logic.
The smart decision is to get both off them.
If you got the money, absolutely
One stop of light isn’t worth $1200 to me. I’ve shot indoor sports with both of these and the difference is 4000 iso on the f4 and 3200 iso on the f2.8 at the same shutter speed. With todays cameras you will not notice a difference between these ISOs. You’d have to be into some very niche photography for the 2.8 to matter significantly in this type of lens.
I could get behind this thinking. Not to mention the weight and size difference
We are talking 1 f-stop difference. ISO should be 2000 for f/2.8, right? I got confused you mentioned 3200…
I hate my RF 70-200 2.8 and will be 'downgrading' to the EF version. The extending barrel has caused me to lose more shots than I'd like.
Wow, i dont think I’ve ever heard anyone say that before.
How has the extending barrel caused you to lose shots?
@@DanielFazzari user error
Consider a lot less repetition, maybe have some dot points so you don’t rehash your good points
Thanks for watching!