same here, pretty happy with my old rf 70-200 2.8 but.... I'm QUITE interested in the new one it's basically for the teleconverters, with 2X TC I can get 400mm @ F5.6, and that's not bad seriously, it can help with sports, aviation and mild wildlife, all the while having only 1 lens. It's pretty tempting for me at least 😅
💥 Good to see that Canon's 2nd gen. RF 70-200... 1. Reverses the positions of the zoom ring + focus ring 2. Zooms internally 3. Works with TCs (both 1.4x + 2x) 4. Keeps the weight virtually the same (2.4 lbs black, 2.5 lbs white) as the 1st gen. RF 70-200 (2.35 lbs) For travel though, the 1st gen. can fit in a lot of bags vertically, which can be huge for saving space. The newer 2nd gen. will likely need to lay horizontally, taking up the space that could otherwise fit 2 smaller lenses.
I'm just going to keep my external zooming 70-200 because I really like it. The slightly longer throw doesn't bother me at all for some reason, its image quality is fantastic, and the more compact form factor is very much appreciated.
Been using my old EF version II for years and still using it on my R6 and R5 and it works great for basketball and volleyball. I did not go to the first RF version because I saw how Jared struggled with the throw on it in his reviews years ago The new Z version resolves this so in another year or two when prices come down or I can pick up a used version of this new Z lens I will finally make the switch.
EF I II III: for those still on the fence. 1st gen RF: for compactness. 2nd gen RF: for internal zooming + 1.4X & 2X. 2nd gen RF(black): for other brand shooters against white paint. God damn, Canon has everything covered!
The mention of zooming against glass is exactly why I opted for the EF 70-200 2.8 L IS III over the RF version when I got the R6 Mark II. For hockey, you need to keep the lens pressed against glass and the RF version would make that REALLY difficult. Also, the EF version was $1000 cheaper and just as sharp. Also it never misses focus. The R6 Mark II and that lens get around 98% hit rate for hockey, even nailing eye and face AF on players with visors!
I am happy to with my RF 70 - 200 F2.8, it is perfect lens. It i not difficult to zoom in once you get use to it... I love my lens, I love design and all in it ...
I have the old EF version 2, and it looks good, too. Even adapted to my R7 shooting at my daughter's dance gala or my kid's karate belt gradings. I have no need to upgrade. I do, however, want to grab an R6ii to stick this lens on.
When I started with Canon digital Cameras ca. 15/16 years ago, i decided to choose primes and not Zoom-Lenses. So i purchased a 85mm and a 200mm Prime. Still use the EF 200/2.8L USM II. It is a great lens: fast, sharp, small, cheap (700€).
I never had issues with the extending old lense and i actually love the compactness so i can take it more easily on hikes in my backpack. But i agree that the zoom is requiring deliberate zoomthrowing .... however.... doesnt matter really for me. And now we have the beautiful situation that one can choose! You want the perma boner version? get the new one, you prefer compact chode? get the old one! Choice > no choice
I love this new design so much, it looks more professional and serious than the first edition. Today I decided to buy a Sigma 70-200 F2.8 E-mount that looks exactly like the black canon lens and it is amazing, after seeing so many reviews about its caveats I found none of them and feels like cheating compared to the adapted minolta 80-200 G HS APO. It's extremely sharp, has no OSS tredpidation and grips on focus while zooming harder than a gamedog onto a boar's nose. I'm sure this canon lens will be miles ahead!
I had the same issues with the original RF. I'm glad I wasn't alone. I missed a lot of shots the first game I used it. Great for portrait shooters where speed is not an issue. But I just disliked that they swapped the zoom ring and focus ring so that you had to reach away from the body, in addition to the longer throw that took a full grip of the barrel. It lost the smooth, fast, intuitive zoom IMO. I look forward to picking this one up.
I took the "old" RF 70-200 to airshow recently and I never have problem with the zooming, yes it needed a bit of twisting but it is fine for me and I didn't "miss a lots of shoots" compare to my 100-400 anyways, and the compactness is perfect for me, same goes for the RF 24-70 2.8, I tried the 24-105 2.8 and while it is good I don't feels like its size is a good lens for walkaround travel lens. The only thing I think that matters is the ability to put TCX2 on it, then again the TC will most likely be weld onto the 100-400 most of the time anyways.
The new one has better dust seal and the teleconverters but it is so handy to be able to pack the original RF in a sling back and have room for a second lens. Ultimately tho, I’m aiming for the f2.8 24-105 because that range can live on my camera
I personally do a lot of photography that requires a lot of travel, so the compactness of the chode edition is actually great for me. It means I can fit an additional lens in my bag or perhaps even a tripod or additional clothes. I have both the EF and RF chode versions (shared between me and my brother), and because I don’t do sports, the throw really doesn’t bug me whatsoever. I am, however, glad Canon decided to build both. The 70-200 is such an important lens that pretty much every photographer needs, so having 3 excellent options available (cheap but clunky, compact but harder to zoom, and expensive with all the bells and whistles) is great. I do hope the chode edition eventually gets a Version ii and Canon continues it.
The compact version. Will definitely. Get a ii v. Canon made sure of that option by putting "apparently" better optics in the z that they can next put in the compact ii if the make a ii.
I chose to trade in my “Old” RF 70-200 and put it towards my RF 100-300 2.8. Shooting sports with that along with the 28-105 2.8 makes things easier. The new body looks nice tho. Especially being in the same casing as the 28-105
Wait, the choice is ours, thanks Fro 👍😋 I have the EF Version 1 and the RF, both great lenses, bought the RF because it takes up less room in my backpack when traveling.
I would probably go with the old EF lens. It's not just a budget thing but with the Ef to RF adapter I have I can drop in filters very quickly and I don't need to buy a brand new set of filters just for one lens and it drops in so it saves time... I don't need super fast auto-focus for what I am currently doing so the ability to have that drop in filter is the best thing ever. That and I still want the 24-105mm f2.8 which I would think would be great for 99% of everything I do. The person who owns that probably wouldn't want a 70-200mm... Maybe a 100-300mm would have been a better match.
Seems like my main complaint about the rf 70-200 is the zoom extending out while I’m walking with it. I keep it locked when walking but that adds a step that can make you miss a shot in a hurry. No interest in upgrading though since I don’t shoot sports.
Mr Polin, I must admit, I am very bummed out about this new Z ver. I bought the original rf. Ver. About 3 months ago.. Listen I don't make my living with photography, but I can't avoid beating my self up about this. I guess just a personal flaw. But it wouldn't bothering at all IF the only differences were. That it's a non extender, hybrid lens and that you can use tc's.. but what bothers me is that it's actually optically better... I don't have the z to actually compare but I hear it's sharper... that's actually what bothers me.. Anyway nice video.
Don’t really shoot much sport or wildlife. So for me the original RF 70-200 is working out great. I prefer the more compact design for travel photography, landscape and portrait photography. If I were to shoot lots of sports, then yes, the new lens would be better
Love the video as always. Is there a way to just get pack 1 or even better just skittles? I normally make my own presets but would like to see the results from skittles. Thanks for all you do for the photo community.
You can buy each pack separately at their respective URLS froknowsphoto.com/fropack1 (/fropack2, etc). The original individual packs are back at normal price though since we lift the sale once a new pack is released. Check out Kaleidoscope from FroPack4 also if you really dig Skittles, it's another excellent alternative.
I have the EF version adapted to my R3. There is not a compelling reason to update to either the RF version or the Z version based on image quality alone. If I needed to replace the EF version then of course I would get the Z version, but that is the only reason. I also have the RF 24-105 f/2.8 Z lens. That is well worth the price of entry. It is amazing in every respect and I would imagine the 70-200 version is just as amazing, just not amazing enough to ditch the adapted EF 70-200 for the new Z version. I would like to know more about the tele-converters. The RF 1.4 converter could be handy on the 24-105 f/2.8 from time to time. Please review them.
Do the electrical contacts on the lens body compromise its weather sealing? I would compare the lens' lengths without the hoods. The two RF lenses look virtually identical when the older one is zoomed out.
I like the EF II because when I put it on my R50 it looks much more ridiculous than the yuppie-zuppie RFs. Seriously, though, these lenses make amazing pictures on an APS-C body.
I’m still rocking my EF70-200 III adapted to RF. The external zoom is pretty much a no go for me. In the harsh, muddy and dusty environments I often shoot (military and motor sports) it’s just not a good idea. I’ve already have a (older, cheaper) lens which now has a permanent scratching sound when zooming. And it almost happened again last time when I got sprayed with mud. And this basically "locks" the lens to the longest focal length because I can’t really clean it well in the field. But no problem with the EF70-200. The new 70-200 Z looks great and I would really appreciate the lower weight and faster focus but for 3600€ it’s just to much.
Yeah 3600€ is waay too much to spend for basically putting lens at risk every time.. better option may be the 100- 500 keep you farther, but then again that's also external zoom.
I recently put the foot back on my 70-200 because I use it with my Black Rapid dual camera sling. I know Jared thinks the tripod mount is only for tripods and, therefore, dumb, but wedding and event photographers everywhere know otherwise.
Serious question Jared. Is your pom pom hair just a barrier to block the view to anyone behind you in order to prevent others from taking the same frames as you?
Hi Jared, I hope you are well! Please activate the translator so I can see it since I don't speak English and I always watch your videos with subtitles, thanks Jared, long life
Sticking with EF until I can start to generate consisant money. If I was full time pro, I would be bumping to the new RF, for me Id rather have the internal zoom. I feel much more confinement in the longevity
Yeah I have the choad edition, but did buy the new 24-105 f/2.8 coz I shoot a lot of video and wanted canons as my fullframe option. I use m4/3 primarily. So going to decide if sell the choad edition to get the hybrid version. I'm just not crazy about how much electronic wizardry is needed to correct the new lenses, but I guess all of em need it across all brands.
There is so much great EF glass, perfect for beginners. R10 plus used EF-S 17-55 / EF 70-200 2.8 combo, and you are good to go for sports. Maybe a fast, cheap prime, that’s it.
That's 17 to 55 is ancient... People still act like this is some must have lens. No it's ancient and it should be buried just like with all the old stuff. Absolutely not good for modern-day shooting and will be creaky also. It was good for the time now it's time to be buried.. that is nothing like the EF 70 to 200 Mark II especially which will be a good lens literally forever. I would never recommend that to a crop sensor user.. not even now.
That „ancient“ lens still manages to pull off great IQ (watch Christopher Frost review on Canon R7), has IS and a good USM motor. Really nothing wrong with it today. But yeah, the Sigma 18-50 is probably better, I forgot about that.
@@andreasbuder4417 the IQ at 2.8 , just like with most lenses, is good in the middle, actually in the very center. Even in mid-frame it starts getting hazy which begins to obliterate the sharpness as you get to the outer frame....and that's on crop. Not less sharp just haze that covers it. That's simply not good enough anymore. Nowadays is better if the lens isn't super sharp but it's free from haze and aberrations. That haze is essentially a big bunch of aberrations getting spread across the frame like mayonnaise. It sucks, but not as bad as on that 85 1.8 EF super ancient lens that also gets recommended all the time. Full frame lenses will save you from the vignetting on a crop body, but not in this case. I still have my samples from when I use this so many years ago and the images were nothing special, it was only that it was 2.8.
For sports the internal zoom is way better and easier. I was so used to sony 70 200 2.8 internal zoom and last week i was actually really upset with 100 400 handling for sports 😂.
Not sure about 2 fingers zooming or whole hand on the original. I have big hands and just fits on the palm of my hand. I can zoom it faster than my 100-500 But I wouldn’t like having the new exposed. If you don’t have the external zoom. But putting a tc in a basketball game is pretty good. 200 is hard opposite court
@@answeris4217 A 300mm f/2.8, by definition, requires an aperture of 300/2.8 = 107mm. That is absurdly large. The barrel of the lens would have to be larger than that. Take a look at any 300mm f/2.8 lens. They're huge. You can't fight physics on this one. That's the definition of aperture. The average pro zoom has a front filter diameter of 77mm or 82mm. The best you could do is f/4 if you wanted to go to 300mm without being absurdly thick.
@@ashley-paul What is the issue??? You could just make drop in filter system. It's the main reason why I haven't moved to RF grass because I can adapt my EF glass and have a filter in the EF-RF adapter.
@@answeris4217 Canon does make an RF 100-300mm f/2.8. Did you miss that release? It's $9499 and 5.7 lb. That's the issue. That's a little too expensive and oversized for most people.
I had the original RF 7-200 and hated the throw on it. I sold it, bought the EF 70-200 2.8 III and can now zoom with my zoom. Much shorter throw, and the lens works great.
I pre-ordered the "Z" as soon as it was available, it arrived late last week, and I'm LOVING it! I hated the external throw (also less desirable due to less reliable weather-sealing), and while they seem to be equal in focusing speed and image quality, the custom buttons, the video-specific features, the teleconverter compatbility, the all-black option, and of course the shorter, internal throw, all made upgrading a no-brainer (and I am a full-time, working pro :D)
I’m still happy with my “old” RF 70-200. Love the small size and weight for my needs
Same here :-) My camera backpack just fits the chode edition much better.
Nice! yeah that lens is amazing. This new lens is as well. but so were the old EF 70-200mm lenses.
same here, pretty happy with my old rf 70-200 2.8 but.... I'm QUITE interested in the new one
it's basically for the teleconverters, with 2X TC I can get 400mm @ F5.6, and that's not bad seriously, it can help with sports, aviation and mild wildlife, all the while having only 1 lens. It's pretty tempting for me at least 😅
@ yeah that’s the only thing I wish the old RF 70-200 had
Saying old to an rf lens is crazy. Dang
I stay with my old RF 70 - 200 because i love the compactness in my Camerabag.
Same here, plus it‘s really sharp and the AF works well
💥 Good to see that Canon's 2nd gen. RF 70-200...
1. Reverses the positions of the zoom ring + focus ring
2. Zooms internally
3. Works with TCs (both 1.4x + 2x)
4. Keeps the weight virtually the same (2.4 lbs black, 2.5 lbs white) as the 1st gen. RF 70-200 (2.35 lbs)
For travel though, the 1st gen. can fit in a lot of bags vertically, which can be huge for saving space. The newer 2nd gen. will likely need to lay horizontally, taking up the space that could otherwise fit 2 smaller lenses.
I'm just going to keep my external zooming 70-200 because I really like it. The slightly longer throw doesn't bother me at all for some reason, its image quality is fantastic, and the more compact form factor is very much appreciated.
At 0:35 why is the F-stop f1.2 when you are reviewing a f2.8 lens? Someone messed up clips... Dan!
Great observation, also it says 85mm ... He might be checking RF 85mm f1.2 here as well
ah yes, I shot with the 85 1.2 that day too, must've slipped that clip in there by accident. Everything else is from the 70-200s
happy with my original RF 70-200 love the compact size for travelling which is the most important thing for me
Been using my old EF version II for years and still using it on my R6 and R5 and it works great for basketball and volleyball. I did not go to the first RF version because I saw how Jared struggled with the throw on it in his reviews years ago The new Z version resolves this so in another year or two when prices come down or I can pick up a used version of this new Z lens I will finally make the switch.
I have the EF version iii and I’ll just adapt it whenever I move up to the RF mount…freaking LOVE that lens! 😅
EF I II III: for those still on the fence.
1st gen RF: for compactness.
2nd gen RF: for internal zooming + 1.4X & 2X.
2nd gen RF(black): for other brand shooters against white paint.
God damn, Canon has everything covered!
The mention of zooming against glass is exactly why I opted for the EF 70-200 2.8 L IS III over the RF version when I got the R6 Mark II. For hockey, you need to keep the lens pressed against glass and the RF version would make that REALLY difficult. Also, the EF version was $1000 cheaper and just as sharp. Also it never misses focus. The R6 Mark II and that lens get around 98% hit rate for hockey, even nailing eye and face AF on players with visors!
I am happy to with my RF 70 - 200 F2.8, it is perfect lens. It i not difficult to zoom in once you get use to it... I love my lens, I love design and all in it ...
I have the old EF version 2, and it looks good, too. Even adapted to my R7 shooting at my daughter's dance gala or my kid's karate belt gradings. I have no need to upgrade. I do, however, want to grab an R6ii to stick this lens on.
Does it come in black? - Bruce Wayne 😂
Thanks Jared. I Was waiting for this❤
I like travel photography, so keeping everything compact is important to me. being able to fit a nifty 50 with the RF70-200 is important to me.
When I started with Canon digital Cameras ca. 15/16 years ago, i decided to choose primes and not Zoom-Lenses. So i purchased a 85mm and a 200mm Prime. Still use the EF 200/2.8L USM II. It is a great lens: fast, sharp, small, cheap (700€).
Great review! Thank you. Loving those presets too.
Yes, but how does it compare quality-wise against the FE 70-200mm f/2.8 GM OSS II?
5:58
That’s what she said 😂😂😂
I never had issues with the extending old lense and i actually love the compactness so i can take it more easily on hikes in my backpack. But i agree that the zoom is requiring deliberate zoomthrowing .... however.... doesnt matter really for me. And now we have the beautiful situation that one can choose! You want the perma boner version? get the new one, you prefer compact chode? get the old one!
Choice > no choice
I love this new design so much, it looks more professional and serious than the first edition. Today I decided to buy a Sigma 70-200 F2.8 E-mount that looks exactly like the black canon lens and it is amazing, after seeing so many reviews about its caveats I found none of them and feels like cheating compared to the adapted minolta 80-200 G HS APO. It's extremely sharp, has no OSS tredpidation and grips on focus while zooming harder than a gamedog onto a boar's nose. I'm sure this canon lens will be miles ahead!
I didn’t realize you can go to f1.2 on the 2.8 Z lens.. 0:35
Hahaha.. I saw that too..
I suppose it may be time to update from the original EF MRK1.
Steven pumping out the content while Fro is in Kenya?
I had the same issues with the original RF. I'm glad I wasn't alone. I missed a lot of shots the first game I used it. Great for portrait shooters where speed is not an issue. But I just disliked that they swapped the zoom ring and focus ring so that you had to reach away from the body, in addition to the longer throw that took a full grip of the barrel. It lost the smooth, fast, intuitive zoom IMO. I look forward to picking this one up.
I took the "old" RF 70-200 to airshow recently and I never have problem with the zooming, yes it needed a bit of twisting but it is fine for me and I didn't "miss a lots of shoots" compare to my 100-400 anyways, and the compactness is perfect for me, same goes for the RF 24-70 2.8, I tried the 24-105 2.8 and while it is good I don't feels like its size is a good lens for walkaround travel lens. The only thing I think that matters is the ability to put TCX2 on it, then again the TC will most likely be weld onto the 100-400 most of the time anyways.
The new one has better dust seal and the teleconverters but it is so handy to be able to pack the original RF in a sling back and have room for a second lens.
Ultimately tho, I’m aiming for the f2.8 24-105 because that range can live on my camera
I personally do a lot of photography that requires a lot of travel, so the compactness of the chode edition is actually great for me. It means I can fit an additional lens in my bag or perhaps even a tripod or additional clothes. I have both the EF and RF chode versions (shared between me and my brother), and because I don’t do sports, the throw really doesn’t bug me whatsoever. I am, however, glad Canon decided to build both. The 70-200 is such an important lens that pretty much every photographer needs, so having 3 excellent options available (cheap but clunky, compact but harder to zoom, and expensive with all the bells and whistles) is great. I do hope the chode edition eventually gets a Version ii and Canon continues it.
The compact version. Will definitely. Get a ii v. Canon made sure of that option by putting "apparently" better optics in the z that they can next put in the compact ii if the make a ii.
I chose to trade in my “Old” RF 70-200 and put it towards my RF 100-300 2.8. Shooting sports with that along with the 28-105 2.8 makes things easier. The new body looks nice tho. Especially being in the same casing as the 28-105
Wait, the choice is ours, thanks Fro 👍😋 I have the EF Version 1 and the RF, both great lenses, bought the RF because it takes up less room in my backpack when traveling.
I would probably go with the old EF lens. It's not just a budget thing but with the Ef to RF adapter I have I can drop in filters very quickly and I don't need to buy a brand new set of filters just for one lens and it drops in so it saves time...
I don't need super fast auto-focus for what I am currently doing so the ability to have that drop in filter is the best thing ever.
That and I still want the 24-105mm f2.8 which I would think would be great for 99% of everything I do. The person who owns that probably wouldn't want a 70-200mm... Maybe a 100-300mm would have been a better match.
Seems like my main complaint about the rf 70-200 is the zoom extending out while I’m walking with it. I keep it locked when walking but that adds a step that can make you miss a shot in a hurry.
No interest in upgrading though since I don’t shoot sports.
Mr Polin,
I must admit, I am very bummed out about this new Z ver. I bought the original rf. Ver. About 3 months ago..
Listen I don't make my living with photography, but I can't avoid beating my self up about this. I guess just a personal flaw. But it wouldn't bothering at all IF the only differences were. That it's a non extender, hybrid lens and that you can use tc's.. but what bothers me is that it's actually optically better... I don't have the z to actually compare but I hear it's sharper... that's actually what bothers me.. Anyway nice video.
I use Sony and I LOVE the easy zoom throw in that bad boy, but the powerzoom option is something I'd like.
Don’t really shoot much sport or wildlife. So for me the original RF 70-200 is working out great. I prefer the more compact design for travel photography, landscape and portrait photography. If I were to shoot lots of sports, then yes, the new lens would be better
I stay with my v II but I love the small one, the Z is just for sport.
RF 20-90 f2.0 Z ?
Can you tell any difference in Picture quality from the RF to the Z?
Same ?
Love the video as always.
Is there a way to just get pack 1 or even better just skittles? I normally make my own presets but would like to see the results from skittles.
Thanks for all you do for the photo community.
You can buy each pack separately at their respective URLS froknowsphoto.com/fropack1 (/fropack2, etc). The original individual packs are back at normal price though since we lift the sale once a new pack is released. Check out Kaleidoscope from FroPack4 also if you really dig Skittles, it's another excellent alternative.
I have the EF version adapted to my R3. There is not a compelling reason to update to either the RF version or the Z version based on image quality alone. If I needed to replace the EF version then of course I would get the Z version, but that is the only reason. I also have the RF 24-105 f/2.8 Z lens. That is well worth the price of entry. It is amazing in every respect and I would imagine the 70-200 version is just as amazing, just not amazing enough to ditch the adapted EF 70-200 for the new Z version. I would like to know more about the tele-converters. The RF 1.4 converter could be handy on the 24-105 f/2.8 from time to time. Please review them.
Do the electrical contacts on the lens body compromise its weather sealing?
I would compare the lens' lengths without the hoods. The two RF lenses look virtually identical when the older one is zoomed out.
Canon says they do not
I like the EF II because when I put it on my R50 it looks much more ridiculous than the yuppie-zuppie RFs. Seriously, though, these lenses make amazing pictures on an APS-C body.
This is a great lens! the 24-105mm f/2.8 and this 70-200mm f/2.8 are really the only lenses I need! the 85mm is just a bonus lol.
I’m still rocking my EF70-200 III adapted to RF.
The external zoom is pretty much a no go for me. In the harsh, muddy and dusty environments I often shoot (military and motor sports) it’s just not a good idea.
I’ve already have a (older, cheaper) lens which now has a permanent scratching sound when zooming. And it almost happened again last time when I got sprayed with mud. And this basically "locks" the lens to the longest focal length because I can’t really clean it well in the field.
But no problem with the EF70-200.
The new 70-200 Z looks great and I would really appreciate the lower weight and faster focus but for 3600€ it’s just to much.
Yeah 3600€ is waay too much to spend for basically putting lens at risk every time.. better option may be the 100- 500 keep you farther, but then again that's also external zoom.
The EF is slightly softer at pixel peep levels.
I recently put the foot back on my 70-200 because I use it with my Black Rapid dual camera sling. I know Jared thinks the tripod mount is only for tripods and, therefore, dumb, but wedding and event photographers everywhere know otherwise.
yeah I prefer holding the foot when taking photos with my 70-200 gmII ngl
I'm fine with my first gen 70-200mm F2.8.
Wonder if you can use a 1.4x or 2x on the 24-105 f2.8 🧐🧐🧐🧐
I like my old Nikon 70-200 f2.8... saves going to the gym
Serious question Jared. Is your pom pom hair just a barrier to block the view to anyone behind you in order to prevent others from taking the same frames as you?
Hi Jared, I hope you are well! Please activate the translator so I can see it since I don't speak English and I always watch your videos with subtitles, thanks Jared, long life
Sticking with EF until I can start to generate consisant money. If I was full time pro, I would be bumping to the new RF, for me Id rather have the internal zoom. I feel much more confinement in the longevity
Where is your review of the Canon R1?
What is the quality of the photos of the new RF "Z" with 1.4x and 2x teleconverters?
I love the, "thats what she said"... Good one :)
Damn. Canon and nikon started their real game now👌
Yeah I have the choad edition, but did buy the new 24-105 f/2.8 coz I shoot a lot of video and wanted canons as my fullframe option. I use m4/3 primarily. So going to decide if sell the choad edition to get the hybrid version. I'm just not crazy about how much electronic wizardry is needed to correct the new lenses, but I guess all of em need it across all brands.
There is so much great EF glass, perfect for beginners. R10 plus used EF-S 17-55 / EF 70-200 2.8 combo, and you are good to go for sports. Maybe a fast, cheap prime, that’s it.
That's 17 to 55 is ancient... People still act like this is some must have lens. No it's ancient and it should be buried just like with all the old stuff. Absolutely not good for modern-day shooting and will be creaky also.
It was good for the time now it's time to be buried.. that is nothing like the EF 70 to 200 Mark II especially which will be a good lens literally forever.
I would never recommend that to a crop sensor user.. not even now.
The Sigma 18-50 is out now for the apsc. It would be better to get that (and even better when Tamron releases their 17-70)
That „ancient“ lens still manages to pull off great IQ (watch Christopher Frost review on Canon R7), has IS and a good USM motor. Really nothing wrong with it today. But yeah, the Sigma 18-50 is probably better, I forgot about that.
@@andreasbuder4417 the IQ at 2.8 , just like with most lenses, is good in the middle, actually in the very center. Even in mid-frame it starts getting hazy which begins to obliterate the sharpness as you get to the outer frame....and that's on crop. Not less sharp just haze that covers it. That's simply not good enough anymore. Nowadays is better if the lens isn't super sharp but it's free from haze and aberrations. That haze is essentially a big bunch of aberrations getting spread across the frame like mayonnaise. It sucks, but not as bad as on that 85 1.8 EF super ancient lens that also gets recommended all the time.
Full frame lenses will save you from the vignetting on a crop body, but not in this case.
I still have my samples from when I use this so many years ago and the images were nothing special, it was only that it was 2.8.
I wanna sniff test this lens and wind tunnel it into my dry cabinet please. Still on version1 of the 70-200L.
If I am going on a big city vacation do I take a 28-70 f2 or 70 to 200mm ? Downtown Boston
How Canon managed to use Z in their lens name and not get heat from Nikon is interesting.
I'll stick with the old RF 70-200 for the size and weight, carrying it all day at weddings.
02:43 can the lens hood of RF 135mm be used on this lens ? the filter thread is same 82mm ..
For sports the internal zoom is way better and easier. I was so used to sony 70 200 2.8 internal zoom and last week i was actually really upset with 100 400 handling for sports 😂.
Not sure about 2 fingers zooming or whole hand on the original. I have big hands and just fits on the palm of my hand. I can zoom it faster than my 100-500 But I wouldn’t like having the new exposed. If you don’t have the external zoom. But putting a tc in a basketball game is pretty good. 200 is hard opposite court
Great new lens and they still can't make an arca-swiss cuts on the tripod foot!
Where is the new 24mm RF
Since I use the 100-300/2.8, I am using the 70-200/2.8 much less. So upgrading is not really a topic for me.
We dont care
Canon should have just released the new Z lens to start with. Honestly the price and RF choices for Canon suck big time.
Call me “Bougie” but I will ALWAYS prefer an internal focusing zoom lens over a non internal focusing one…will I pay more…of course! 😅
You cut off the feet on the second picture😢
Does the collar come off or is it just the foot of the collar? Or both?
just the foot, the ring is permanent unlike the removable ring on the EF III version
@@froknowsphoto But if you get the 24-105mm f/2.8 in black, and the 70-200mm f/2.8 in white, you could switch the feet! actually it looks awkward lol.
25 other letters to use and Canon had to use “Z”? 🤔😜 (j/k)
Also wanted to compliment you on the amazing images here 👏🏻
New one is just costly so old version is enough for me.
Why is it 70-200mm when the other new trinity lense is 24.105mm?
Why not go from 105 to 300??? I would have loved that.
@@answeris4217 Same
@@answeris4217 A 300mm f/2.8, by definition, requires an aperture of 300/2.8 = 107mm. That is absurdly large. The barrel of the lens would have to be larger than that. Take a look at any 300mm f/2.8 lens. They're huge. You can't fight physics on this one. That's the definition of aperture. The average pro zoom has a front filter diameter of 77mm or 82mm. The best you could do is f/4 if you wanted to go to 300mm without being absurdly thick.
@@ashley-paul What is the issue??? You could just make drop in filter system. It's the main reason why I haven't moved to RF grass because I can adapt my EF glass and have a filter in the EF-RF adapter.
@@answeris4217 Canon does make an RF 100-300mm f/2.8. Did you miss that release? It's $9499 and 5.7 lb. That's the issue. That's a little too expensive and oversized for most people.
The new canon lens “Nikon” edition.
That’s wha she says🤣🤠
What's Canon with the letter "zed" Jared your fired for saying "zee. "
New video while in Africa?!? The holiday blessings are here! 😂
Why does Jared talk. like. a. robot?
The new lens is over 3 grand. No thanks
I had the original RF 7-200 and hated the throw on it. I sold it, bought the EF 70-200 2.8 III and can now zoom with my zoom. Much shorter throw, and the lens works great.
wow first within 10 seconds
Holy I'm early
My favorite hybrid is a Lexus.
Didn't the rf just come out lol
The Nikon 70-200 S is the better Z lens!
Canon shooters drive Subarus
I pre-ordered the "Z" as soon as it was available, it arrived late last week, and I'm LOVING it! I hated the external throw (also less desirable due to less reliable weather-sealing), and while they seem to be equal in focusing speed and image quality, the custom buttons, the video-specific features, the teleconverter compatbility, the all-black option, and of course the shorter, internal throw, all made upgrading a no-brainer (and I am a full-time, working pro :D)
None of this is the shit lens
Canon lenses just look horrible.