Haha true, in these conditions there is going to be less of a difference. However, this lens is frequently used for event photography with less than ideal lighting that you don’t control.
I debated (not for long) about whether to get the 70-200 f/4 or pay $1100 more for the f/2.8. If I were a professional making money with portrait shots, I "might" consider the f/2.8/ However, since I would be shooting 80% landscapes and only about 20% portraits (family and grand kids), I decided the lighter, smaller f/4 made more sense for me. It's very easy to toss in a backpack and go hiking with then f/4 as a second lens. As this comparison demonstrates, the differences are real, but at longer focal lengths, not very noticeable. With the money I saved getting the f/4 over the 2.8, I also bought the RF 85 f2 refurbished and still have money left over. As this comparison shows at around 5:40, the 85 f/2 obliterates the background much better than the 70-200 f/2.8 and isn't really too far off from the 85 f/1.2 - for a fraction of the cost. (Personally I think the RF 85 f2 is a killer deal! ). If I need a longer focal length with better bokeh that the 70-200 f/4, I also have an EF 135 f/2 which is an amazing lens. For all these reasons, I bought the 70-200 f/4 and have been extremely happy with that decision.
One of the best comparisons i've seen for these lenses!! Super in depth and having photos side by side at every step was so good to be able to pause the video and have a real good look at the differences. Great shots too well done and thanks.
James I want to thank you for making these videos. No one compares lenses as best a you do. You have helped me made some good decisions that I have not regretted when choosing lenses. Every time a new lens comes out. I look forward to watch your video first
Yeah he speaks about a „prime like pop on the 2.8“, in other words, he means the beautiful 3d pop generated by the sun patches on her and the background. not the lens
Great video thank you, it’s helped me no end. Recently bought an R7 and trying to decide which glass lineup to go for. The f4 being much cheaper means I can get another lens to compliment it, whereas the f2.8 takes all the budget.
I just love your comparison videos. Thanks for also putting the 85 f1.2 in here, too. I didn’t realize the unique swirling bokeh effect at 200mm f2.8 until you mentioned it.
You are building an impressive library of thorough, informative reviews. Keep up the good work. It will only be a matter of time before more and more viewers discover your quality content.
Absolutely love your comparison videos because who doesn’t wanna see the differences when considering weight and price and size but I noticed your mid length shots the 2.8 you had really pretty dappled sun but you’re f/4 we’re cloudy, making the color and image look completely different. That was a little bit of a bummer. Either way, love the videos.
Awesome Comparison... I'm debating to add the 70-200 either 2.8 or 4 to the bag for the R5c... .however I already have and LOVE the 24-105mm f4 as it lives on the camera... I also have the nifty fifty 1.8 and honestly for the price I'm completely happy with this set up. I would honestly go with the 70-200mm F4 mainly for the price and size however it has a pretty decent focal overlap. I'm almost contemplating to just going with the 100-500mm, then picking up say a 135mm 1.8 and be done with my set up. Between the 2 lenses I would cover 24-500mm and have the 135 for those super portraits. Also, I'm not always looking to alliterate the background, esp environmental portraits.... I want some of the scene to help tell a story... So I don't mind shooting at F4 or 5.6. At 5:42 I almost prefer the 70-200 F4 out of the 85mm and the 2.8.... because the background feels still soft but natural... where as the 85mm at 1.2 is almost like added blur.
First really good comparison I see between an f2.8 and f4 lens. I am in a different ecosystem (Panasonic) but the difference will basically be the same. You definitely convinced me to get the f4 version for my camera. Great to see the portrait capability with this f4 lens 👍 keep up the great work
Thank you James. I was going to order 2.8 version but after watching this video and checking the raw files going for F4. I already have 28-70 F2 for indoor and bokeh.
Thanks for the great comparison video I just needed. I might need the f2.8 at extreme low light situations or best 70-200 portraits, but I’m gonna let my 85mm do it and use f4. Its image quality is good enough and the lightness is just unbelieveable. I might be able to handle some low light situations with the IS, and most importantly it’s much cheaper! It’s a perfect 70-200 for travelers like me.
One of the most useful and well made videos about the RF 70-200 lenses! It would be awesome to have a comparison between RF 24-105 F4 and RF 24-70 F2.8
Really great video. Easy choice for me / f4 ... Sometimes they really look very similar and I do agree with all you said who need f 2.8 vs f4 Great shoot and really mazing work to shows differences . Thanks 👌
Thanks for this review, really helped me in choosing the F4. Personally love the fact that at F4 I can get a razor sharp image with the whole face in focus and at the same time obliterate the background. Then for landscape photos I can stop all the way down to F16 and with IS get some great panoramas. Even the video is great, nice and smooth hand held. I really appreciate the most that you provide RAW files as I can actually load them into Lightroom and see for myself the quality at full resolution. Makes all the difference when deciding on a lens. Thanks James
I must say this is a more comprehensive break down and the photo sharing to edit and see for yourself is awesome. I also like that the setting on camera are shared to kinda help a amateur shooter like myself connect the dot with audio and video points... Thank You...
In situation with low light you wish you had the 2.8. I tried both and there is definitely a huge different. The shots used in this video were in perfect lighting...
I just bought the f2.8 version today new for $2499 US and am glad I finally did. It was a hard decision between the two but I figured it’s better to have that extra stop of light than not. However i appreciate the ergonomics of the F4 version a little better.
I can see an extreme difference in the brightness level and sharpness. Going for the 2.8. The price difference is nothing when doing what you love. You find a way to make it happen. What is the music in the background during your Headshot comparison in the beginning? Very well and thorough comparison
Thank you.. I think, for me, the main thing I don’t see is over $1,000 in difference. Picked the RF 70-200 f4 up today with a rebate. Loving it already.
After having the EF 70-200mm f2.8L MKII for a few years and mainly using the lens in the studio I knew I didn’t really need f2.8 so bought the RF 70-200mm f4L. I’ve no regrets it works flawlessly in the studio and on the occasions I take it out for landscape it’s weight & size saving really shine through without sacrificing image quality.
The 2.8 has more 3d pop and is a little sharper. Outside in great lighting it's hard to tell. The benefit of the 2.8 will be the better quality but also will benefit more in lowlight. The benefit of the f4 is the size and shorter zoom throw and cheaper price.
I found it hard to discern as to which lens I preferred, but at 8:15 in the video the image with Rachel I liked the hands better with the f 4 lens. I sometimes think that there is too much emphasis made on bokeh as I like less of this and more of the details of the model and where the model is. BTW - Rachel is beautiful and such a good model! A very good video all around.....
Great Video! Thanks so much! I never really considered the F4 version until I saw this video. The F2.8 comes with a heavy duty price tag and can't justify the cost no matter how hard I try, so I feel sooo much better going with the F4 version. Time to see if there are any Cyber Monday deals :-)
Thank you for the excellent comparison. I saw this after I had already purchased the F4 and was very surprised by the relatively modest differences between lens performance (at least for my needs, based off your comparison) than I had expected. Picked up a refurb RF70-200F4 from Canon for US$1099 over the holidays. Hope you were able to get one too. It was too good of deal to pass up. Very happy with the lens, and it's a great all around piece of glass to use, even on a lowly RP.. Not quite as sharp as my pro M43 gear, but considering it has a much harder job, I'm very impressed with it. And it packs smaller than some of my M43 glass.
The RF 70-200 2.8 images from 4:30 at 100mm and 135mm (2.8) look like 50mm 1.2 prime lens images to me, in terms of rendering and bokeh. They have that typical 50mm look. In my opinion it is better to have the 135mm prime lens 2.0 or 1.8 which gives a totally different look at 135.
honestly I barely noticed much of real difference and in fact I prefer some of the shot and color on the f4 lens. i went with the f4 lens for much lighter and small travel lens. and the saved money I put in an 85 1.2L lens. never regretted.
I some circumstances a faster or slower aperture may be preferred. One thing's for sure: a faster lens can go slower but a slower lens can never go faster!
I have the EF f2.8 and I would be interested to see a comparison with the RF one. If you were on a budget and you could not afford the RF f2.8 you could get the f4 and the Canon RF 85mm f2 for low light and save a lot of money. The 85mm f2 I don't think would focus fast enough for commercial use though
Hurts me to find this video after i went and got the 70-200 2.8 after so many years of wanting this lens. I thought the 2.8 vs the 4.0 would make such a huge difference, i wish it was as small and compact as the F4 lens, also that price tag i paid, I'm hurt man! nice video
Your videos are great. I think I’m gonna buy the 70-200 f4 for my first zoom lens as I love how it looks here and I want to get more into shooting concerts. The 85mm 1.2 is my dream lens. 💰
Great video as always, If only the 2.8 version wasn't so expensive. I would love to replace my EF Mark III version, as the lighter weight would be such an improvement, not to mention the all important minimum focus distance benefit of the RF version, which is almost half closer than the EF.
Thanks for yet another excellent lens review! I did choose the 2.8, too - apart from better bokeh and better rendering: I used this lens several times now in settings were 2.8 saved me from having to double my ISO. Imho it can be easily handheld when paired with the R6, no big difference to the 50mm 1.2. The 2.8 also shares the 50mm 1.2 77mm filter thread. And the 50mm 1.2 hood fits the 70-200mmm 2.8, too: this combo looks a little more low key then with the original monster hood - good for situations were the photographer doesn't want to scream for attention...
@@JamesReader Same with me, I did never like the original hood with this silly door. But sometimes I'm clumsy, so I prefer to have a hood as a bumper - the EF 85mm 1.4L hood (also with 77mm filter thread) works, too btw, and is even smaller.
Something I learned the hard way was f2.8 is absolutely useless when shooting more than one person. Especially a family with kids. I had to shoot at f4 to keep all faces in focus making the f2.8 an unnecessary expense.
Thank you for the video. Best comparison so far. For amateurs like me who mainly shoot family photos, I need a lens providing good image quality and is easy to carry. This video gives me confidence to go with the F4.
Great video. But it's a pity that the lighting conditions are a little different... obviously F2.8 gets more sunlight, maybe that's why F4 is a little cooler
I must honestly say that I didn't find any big differences between them. There are, but they are less than I thought. I like the look of the F4. Now if it is to have that beautiful bohek, in that case I prefer the 85mm 1.2. It is unique and unbeatable. Thanks for the video, as always, the best there is on the web. Greetings from Chile.
Hi James! Excellent comparisons! I do love your color grading so much, these photos' color are all look so comfortable, could you make a video to talk about your post production workflow, I will appreciate it.
Hey mate, this is one of the best comparison videos I've ever seen put together on RUclips, and as a professional I've seen a lot of them over the past decade+. Thanks for doing such an excellent job. Your model is incredible, I hope she's doing a lot of great work. I did notice that most of your 2.8 images had more dappled light, whereas the 4.0 images did not; thus there seems to be cooler tones in the 4.0 overall. As you noted below, you stated using this mostly for video, which I do as well. For video alone, I wonder if you'd go with the 4.0 instead of the 2.8?
Thank you so much! Yep definitely had flatter lighting with the f4 lens. Sun was in and out of the clouds through the comparison. I think the f4 version is perfect for video especially on full frame. I use the C70 a lot so the 2.8 comes in handy there, otherwise I really like the F4 versions of all the RF zooms. Thank you for watching!
@@JamesReader I just came back from England so I know the challenge with the clouds, though it makes for far more interesting lighting than where I live with the constant deep blue sky. I hadn't thought about the F4 working better on a full frame sensor vs Super 35mm for video. Great point. I wonder how much more light sensitivity you get, maybe a half stop, in comparison between the two? Keep the videos coming, and thanks for sharing the images and data with us, that's really generous. I'm going to look at your archives for portrait touchup videos as I love your post work.
It's interesting that the 2.8 has the ring layout that it does. As far as I can tell, starting at the lens mount, zoom-focus-control is the RF standard, with the exception of the 100-500 which is focus-control-zoom, and this 2.8, which is control-focus-zoom. I don't have either, but I feel like that would mess with muscle memory a bit.
As a photographer I don't see much difference and I've seen something that Canon hasn't made much change in these lenses, that's why I use my Canon R with EF lenses and adapter and the photos are very beautiful, the RF lenses are too expensive
Great comparison. I've recently migrated over to Canon after shooting Sony for many years. Previous experience with the 70-200 2.8GM makes me now opt for the f4 Canon variant. The GM is a fantastic lens, but it's not a very heavily used lens in my loadout, and when I do use it I pretty much never do wide open. I'm just not a huge fan of the obliterated background look. So, is the RF 2.8 optically better at F4 than the native F4 lens is at F4? Heck it better be for that price difference. Does it matter to me though?...nope. Not nearly as much as the savings on size, weight, and price. These two lenses really are very close in performance, and I think your conclusion is spot-on that it really just depends on how much ambient light you typically shoot in. For indoor sports I wouldn't touch the F4, but for pretty much everything else it's the one I'd rather have. EDIT: Here's one more thing to consider as well...which other lenses do you have that overlap this focal range. For instance, I have the big choady 28-70f2. So, if at 70mm I already have a faster, sharper zoom, and if the 70-200 variants perform increasingly similarly as they approach the tele end...not much sense in the 2.8, for me anyway.
Totally agree with you. The F4 is such a fantastic lens. Any optical differences are so minor and totally outweighed by the build and handling of the lens. Canon did a great job with all their f4 zooms, some do the best lenses on the RF Mount.
Great comparison. Any idea whether there will be similar differences for the sony/sigma lineup on sony camera? The difference is not so stark between 70-200 f2.8 & f4, it seems. Comments welcome.
big thanks for all your comparisons 15-35/ 70-200. Got both of them in the 2.8 version. Your video to the 24-70/ 28-70 is also very helpful !! its my next purchase for weddings/events...but i cant decide which one haha.
OMG the 85mm at 1.2 is just another level, If I could afford it I would go for 85mm for sure. for events or sports 70-200 comes handy but for portrait 85mm is king of bokeh.
Hey Gerry - for a hobbyist I would definitely go for the F4 version. I just wonder if it would be enough reach for bird photography? I would choose between the 70-200 F4 and the RF 100-400 f5.6 - f8
@@JamesReader There is also the Canon RF 200-800 zoom which has been sold out in many parts of the world all year. The fact it's been sold out all year means it must be Canon's biggest selling new lens ever.
Really good comparison. Makes me feel much better about my purchase of the F4. I just upgraded to an R6 from an old 70d, and I'm just starting to build out my photo business. The $1100 I saved was spent towards an RF 24-70 f2.8, and the two are an amazing duo. I don't think these small differences are a big deal for me as a new pro using L glass for the first time. One question for you - I'm looking to complete my kit with a 3rd lens being an RF prime. I do car photography and people/pet portraits. Would you recommend the 50mm 1.2, 85mm 1.2 or the 135mm 1.8 to finish my kit?
I have to recommend the 50 1.2! If you’re gonna have just one prime, it’s probably the most useful and versatile. It has you covered for group shots, head shots, establishing shots, everything. It’s my most used lens.
It’s a huge significant difference between F2.8 and F4 version. However, you can’t see it clearly because this is a R5 which captures high megapixel photos. R5 is a true monster and itself provides great images with most of lenses. Plus, this is a close portraiture setup. Model stands kinda close to the camera. You would see how differently they perform when pair with lower megapixel bodies as R6, R8, R10, RP,…and when you shoot birds, sports, far distance objects. The first difference you could see would be the background (grainy for F4) and the depth of colors. So just work more and save money for f2.8 if you don’t want to sell the f4 and make an upgrade in future.
It seems like you shot the f2.8 in way better lighting. On the f2.8 the sunlight is peaking through the trees and on the model. Whereas the f4 looks like it was shot in the shade.
That’s true. Sun was in and out of the clouds, we did wait for better light but due to time constraints had to move on. Luckily for the purpose of sharpness and background separation I think they serve their purpose, the shots later in the video also have more identical lighting. I still think the f4 tends to render a bit cooler, I find the same with the 14-35 f4. Thank you for watching!
For indoor weddings have you found a issue with f4 and auto focus? Also later at weddings one the dance floor they turn down the lights have you found a issue with f4 auto focus? Thank you.
What I don't understand is why there are sun rays on the model with 2.8 but not with f4, is this a defect of the lens or was it taken when the sun was out? 🤨
I bought the 70-200 f4 after borrowing a 70-200 f2.8 for a weekend. The f4 is so compact and lightweight that I end up taking it on trips where I wouldn’t consider the f2.8.
Another great video James, I recently purchased the RF70-200 f/2.8. When I was considering which of the two to purchase, many of the reviews came to the same conclusion the f/4 was a very good lens and almost comparable to the f/2.8. The f/4 would have suited me however I have a history of buying the cheaper lens and then selling to buy the more expensive version - which usually means paying more in the longer term. What made my decision to go with the f/2.8 was FOMO on the extra stop of light and I was fortunate as a hobbyist I could afford the more expensive lens which should mean I keep this for a long long time and don't second guess whether the f/2.8 would have been better. This is easily my favour lens now.
Thank you for watching Mark. You echo the exact reasons I went with the 2.8 and honestly I don't regret it as I would of ended up with it eventually if I went with the F4. As you say, easily one of my favourite lenses and it is compact enough.
In fact, at Calumet in Germany the 2.8 costs today 3199 euro. This is twice as much as the f4 , and even more expensive as the canon store . Unfortunately it is not only about bokeh, 2.8 delivers as twice as much light as the f4 for indoor situations. I have to rent it if necessary , can' t buy one.
Thank you for sharing your images it has helped me a great deal I've just downloaded the photos and the one where you were standing quite far back at 200 mm photo length with the F4 lens I've just cropped in to the Model eye just to see how far I could crop in and get a small image how to do a little bit of sharpening on it after cropping in so far but what it told me was that the R5 camera is the one for me
RF 18-150 kit lens zoomed at 120mm on a crop sensor camera to match the 200mm on an RF 70-200mm L 2.8 on a full frame camera. will i get the same facial and background compression? (not talking about background blur) (Consider same shooting situation for both)
The f2.8 technically wins on paper, technically. But it's really hard to justify the price difference compared to the f4. One big win the f2.8 has over the f4 is low light. Oh, and the weight factor too. I'd have to stick with the f4 for now. Thanks for the comparisons. Very informative
As i shoot my boudoir stuff at 5.6-f8 the f4 would be it for me. I want to have more than one eye in focus🤣 i tried faster lenses and to me it looks ridiculous if only one eye is in focus and this is what happens if you shoot wide open
I can definitely see a huge difference between the 2.8 and the F4 and most of it is on the price.
Haha, nice 😂
The size and price are the biggest difference for sure.
Haha true, in these conditions there is going to be less of a difference. However, this lens is frequently used for event photography with less than ideal lighting that you don’t control.
Awesome comment 😂
Widać różnicę Rf 70 200 f4 obraz jest płaski, nie ma głębi.
I debated (not for long) about whether to get the 70-200 f/4 or pay $1100 more for the f/2.8. If I were a professional making money with portrait shots, I "might" consider the f/2.8/ However, since I would be shooting 80% landscapes and only about 20% portraits (family and grand kids), I decided the lighter, smaller f/4 made more sense for me. It's very easy to toss in a backpack and go hiking with then f/4 as a second lens. As this comparison demonstrates, the differences are real, but at longer focal lengths, not very noticeable. With the money I saved getting the f/4 over the 2.8, I also bought the RF 85 f2 refurbished and still have money left over. As this comparison shows at around 5:40, the 85 f/2 obliterates the background much better than the 70-200 f/2.8 and isn't really too far off from the 85 f/1.2 - for a fraction of the cost. (Personally I think the RF 85 f2 is a killer deal! ). If I need a longer focal length with better bokeh that the 70-200 f/4, I also have an EF 135 f/2 which is an amazing lens. For all these reasons, I bought the 70-200 f/4 and have been extremely happy with that decision.
Just got the refurbished 85mm f2. Such a great deal and love the lens
One of the best comparisons i've seen for these lenses!! Super in depth and having photos side by side at every step was so good to be able to pause the video and have a real good look at the differences. Great shots too well done and thanks.
Thank you Jamie!
James I want to thank you for making these videos. No one compares lenses as best a you do. You have helped me made some good decisions that I have not regretted when choosing lenses. Every time a new lens comes out. I look forward to watch your video first
Thank you so much Jose, that means a lot and is really encouraging 🙏 I really appreciate the kind words.
but f2.8 photos have beautiful sun light on model, a bit unfair for f4 :D
Yeah he speaks about a „prime like pop on the 2.8“, in other words, he means the beautiful 3d pop generated by the sun patches on her and the background. not the lens
Great video thank you, it’s helped me no end. Recently bought an R7 and trying to decide which glass lineup to go for. The f4 being much cheaper means I can get another lens to compliment it, whereas the f2.8 takes all the budget.
I just love your comparison videos. Thanks for also putting the 85 f1.2 in here, too. I didn’t realize the unique swirling bokeh effect at 200mm f2.8 until you mentioned it.
You are building an impressive library of thorough, informative reviews. Keep up the good work. It will only be a matter of time before more and more viewers discover your quality content.
Thank you so much! I really appreciate the kind words.
I so agree. These comparisons are so well done.
@@mihugong3153 Thank you Michu, that means a lot!
Absolutely love your comparison videos because who doesn’t wanna see the differences when considering weight and price and size but I noticed your mid length shots the 2.8 you had really pretty dappled sun but you’re f/4 we’re cloudy, making the color and image look completely different. That was a little bit of a bummer. Either way, love the videos.
Brilliant video. The differences are so subtle for portraits in good light.
C'est la deuxième vidéo de test d'objectif que je regarde sur votre chaîne et je adore.
Merci
Awesome Comparison... I'm debating to add the 70-200 either 2.8 or 4 to the bag for the R5c... .however I already have and LOVE the 24-105mm f4 as it lives on the camera... I also have the nifty fifty 1.8 and honestly for the price I'm completely happy with this set up. I would honestly go with the 70-200mm F4 mainly for the price and size however it has a pretty decent focal overlap. I'm almost contemplating to just going with the 100-500mm, then picking up say a 135mm 1.8 and be done with my set up. Between the 2 lenses I would cover 24-500mm and have the 135 for those super portraits. Also, I'm not always looking to alliterate the background, esp environmental portraits.... I want some of the scene to help tell a story... So I don't mind shooting at F4 or 5.6.
At 5:42 I almost prefer the 70-200 F4 out of the 85mm and the 2.8.... because the background feels still soft but natural... where as the 85mm at 1.2 is almost like added blur.
First really good comparison I see between an f2.8 and f4 lens. I am in a different ecosystem (Panasonic) but the difference will basically be the same. You definitely convinced me to get the f4 version for my camera. Great to see the portrait capability with this f4 lens 👍 keep up the great work
Thank you for the kind words! I've just picked up a Panasonic my self, their lenses are fantastic
@@JamesReader Same here. with Panasonic S ecosystem. Maybe the f2.8 is not worth an extra 500g in weight, also about 800$ diff in price.
Thank you James. I was going to order 2.8 version but after watching this video and checking the raw files going for F4. I already have 28-70 F2 for indoor and bokeh.
Thanks for the great comparison video I just needed. I might need the f2.8 at extreme low light situations or best 70-200 portraits, but I’m gonna let my 85mm do it and use f4. Its image quality is good enough and the lightness is just unbelieveable. I might be able to handle some low light situations with the IS, and most importantly it’s much cheaper! It’s a perfect 70-200 for travelers like me.
Perfect comment. Im too have the 85 1.2, 50 1.2 and 200 f2. The rf 70-200mm f4 it ia just perfect for travel photography
One of the most useful and well made videos about the RF 70-200 lenses! It would be awesome to have a comparison between RF 24-105 F4 and RF 24-70 F2.8
Thank you so much! I definitely plan on comparing those zooms in the future!
Really great video. Easy choice for me / f4 ... Sometimes they really look very similar and I do agree with all you said who need f 2.8 vs f4
Great shoot and really mazing work to shows differences . Thanks 👌
85 1.2 is just pure insanity. The best prime portrait lens probably ever made. The DS version too.
Same as the EF 85 f/1.2 II is.
Thanks for this review, really helped me in choosing the F4. Personally love the fact that at F4 I can get a razor sharp image with the whole face in focus and at the same time obliterate the background. Then for landscape photos I can stop all the way down to F16 and with IS get some great panoramas. Even the video is great, nice and smooth hand held. I really appreciate the most that you provide RAW files as I can actually load them into Lightroom and see for myself the quality at full resolution. Makes all the difference when deciding on a lens. Thanks James
I must say this is a more comprehensive break down and the photo sharing to edit and see for yourself is awesome. I also like that the setting on camera are shared to kinda help a amateur shooter like myself connect the dot with audio and video points... Thank You...
In situation with low light you wish you had the 2.8. I tried both and there is definitely a huge different. The shots used in this video were in perfect lighting...
I just bought the f2.8 version today new for $2499 US and am glad I finally did. It was a hard decision between the two but I figured it’s better to have that extra stop of light than not. However i appreciate the ergonomics of the F4 version a little better.
I can see an extreme difference in the brightness level and sharpness. Going for the 2.8. The price difference is nothing when doing what you love. You find a way to make it happen. What is the music in the background during your Headshot comparison in the beginning? Very well and thorough comparison
Thank you.. I think, for me, the main thing I don’t see is over $1,000 in difference. Picked the RF 70-200 f4 up today with a rebate. Loving it already.
After having the EF 70-200mm f2.8L MKII for a few years and mainly using the lens in the studio I knew I didn’t really need f2.8 so bought the RF 70-200mm f4L. I’ve no regrets it works flawlessly in the studio and on the occasions I take it out for landscape it’s weight & size saving really shine through without sacrificing image quality.
It's one of the best RF lenses in my opinion, Canon really nailed all the zooms really. Thanks for watching Jeff!
The 2.8 has more 3d pop and is a little sharper. Outside in great lighting it's hard to tell. The benefit of the 2.8 will be the better quality but also will benefit more in lowlight. The benefit of the f4 is the size and shorter zoom throw and cheaper price.
I found it hard to discern as to which lens I preferred, but at 8:15 in the video the image with Rachel I liked the hands better with the f 4 lens. I sometimes think that there is too much emphasis made on bokeh as I like less of this and more of the details of the model and where the model is. BTW - Rachel is beautiful and such a good model! A very good video all around.....
Thank you for the kind words and thank you for watching Frederick. She’s the best!
Agreed. There are many situations where I prefered the F4 images even if they weren't as soft
Great Video! Thanks so much! I never really considered the F4 version until I saw this video. The F2.8 comes with a heavy duty price tag and can't justify the cost no matter how hard I try, so I feel sooo much better going with the F4 version. Time to see if there are any Cyber Monday deals :-)
Thank you for watching! You’ll love the f4 version! It’s an amazing lens
Thank you for the excellent comparison. I saw this after I had already purchased the F4 and was very surprised by the relatively modest differences between lens performance (at least for my needs, based off your comparison) than I had expected. Picked up a refurb RF70-200F4 from Canon for US$1099 over the holidays.
Hope you were able to get one too. It was too good of deal to pass up. Very happy with the lens, and it's a great all around piece of glass to use, even on a lowly RP.. Not quite as sharp as my pro M43 gear, but considering it has a much harder job, I'm very impressed with it. And it packs smaller than some of my M43 glass.
@@jakr1880 That's a steal! If I didn't have the 2.8 I would have jumped on that deal. Really glad to hear you are enjoying the lens.
The RF 70-200 2.8 images from 4:30 at 100mm and 135mm (2.8) look like 50mm 1.2 prime lens images to me, in terms of rendering and bokeh. They have that typical 50mm look. In my opinion it is better to have the 135mm prime lens 2.0 or 1.8 which gives a totally different look at 135.
honestly I barely noticed much of real difference and in fact I prefer some of the shot and color on the f4 lens. i went with the f4 lens for much lighter and small travel lens. and the saved money I put in an 85 1.2L lens. never regretted.
What a great Comparison, and made me notice some general details on the lenses that I never thought they will be there.
what details?
I some circumstances a faster or slower aperture may be preferred. One thing's for sure: a faster lens can go slower but a slower lens can never go faster!
Very true! Thank you for watching Ian.
I have the EF f2.8 and I would be interested to see a comparison with the RF one. If you were on a budget and you could not afford the RF f2.8 you could get the f4 and the Canon RF 85mm f2 for low light and save a lot of money. The 85mm f2 I don't think would focus fast enough for commercial use though
I went with the 2.8 as to have no regrets, and would suggest the same to anyone who can afford it.
It’s an amazing lens. Thank you for watching Chuck.
Hurts me to find this video after i went and got the 70-200 2.8 after so many years of wanting this lens. I thought the 2.8 vs the 4.0 would make such a huge difference, i wish it was as small and compact as the F4 lens, also that price tag i paid, I'm hurt man! nice video
Your videos are great. I think I’m gonna buy the 70-200 f4 for my first zoom lens as I love how it looks here and I want to get more into shooting concerts.
The 85mm 1.2 is my dream lens. 💰
Thank you for watching! You’ll really like the 70-200 f4. It’s an amazing lens.
such an impressive and comprehensive comparison, especially for including the rf 85 1.2, thank you!!
Thank you Andrew!
Great video as always, If only the 2.8 version wasn't so expensive. I would love to replace my EF Mark III version, as the lighter weight would be such an improvement, not to mention the all important minimum focus distance benefit of the RF version, which is almost half closer than the EF.
Great real world comparison and stunning model!
Thank you so much Grzegorz!
Thanks for yet another excellent lens review! I did choose the 2.8, too - apart from better bokeh and better rendering: I used this lens several times now in settings were 2.8 saved me from having to double my ISO. Imho it can be easily handheld when paired with the R6, no big difference to the 50mm 1.2. The 2.8 also shares the 50mm 1.2 77mm filter thread. And the 50mm 1.2 hood fits the 70-200mmm 2.8, too: this combo looks a little more low key then with the original monster hood - good for situations were the photographer doesn't want to scream for attention...
Thank you Tom! Good tip about the hood, I often don’t pack the original 70-200 hood because it takes up so much space.
@@JamesReader Same with me, I did never like the original hood with this silly door. But sometimes I'm clumsy, so I prefer to have a hood as a bumper - the EF 85mm 1.4L hood (also with 77mm filter thread) works, too btw, and is even smaller.
Something I learned the hard way was f2.8 is absolutely useless when shooting more than one person. Especially a family with kids. I had to shoot at f4 to keep all faces in focus making the f2.8 an unnecessary expense.
Thank you for the video. Best comparison so far. For amateurs like me who mainly shoot family photos, I need a lens providing good image quality and is easy to carry. This video gives me confidence to go with the F4.
Great video. But it's a pity that the lighting conditions are a little different... obviously F2.8 gets more sunlight, maybe that's why F4 is a little cooler
Great analysis and very helpful in figuring out which lens to go with.
I watch a lot of photographer youtuber but i think you are the best! Focus only what i need! Thanks
Thank you so much Tomi!
Bought thr 2.8 version yesterday and have a shoot on tuesday,super exited.
Awesome! You'll love it. Let me know how you get on with it!
The closer zoom ring on the F4 seems way more comfortable and intuitive to use than the outfront zoom ring on the F2.8
Thanks for comparing and sharing samples - great job
👊
Thank you!
fantastic comparison! Thanks for bringing the important differences and ignoring the specs that most other videos tend to focus on. Keep it up!
Thank you so much!
@@JamesReaderdo u have a video comparion between 24-105mm f4 & f2.8 lens?
Cost was a big factor since both are prime lenses. I purchased the rf F4 to shoot outdoors and face shots
I must honestly say that I didn't find any big differences between them. There are, but they are less than I thought. I like the look of the F4. Now if it is to have that beautiful bohek, in that case I prefer the 85mm 1.2. It is unique and unbeatable. Thanks for the video, as always, the best there is on the web. Greetings from Chile.
Best comparison I've seen so far. Thank you.
Thank you!!
Nice comparison video. It helped me a lot to decide which one is fit in my set & budget.
Glad it was helpful! Thank you!
What a quality. You deserve a big subscription!
Thank you!
Hi James! Excellent comparisons! I do love your color grading so much, these photos' color are all look so comfortable, could you make a video to talk about your post production workflow, I will appreciate it.
Thank you! I will definitely be putting a video together on editing soon!
Hey mate, this is one of the best comparison videos I've ever seen put together on RUclips, and as a professional I've seen a lot of them over the past decade+. Thanks for doing such an excellent job. Your model is incredible, I hope she's doing a lot of great work. I did notice that most of your 2.8 images had more dappled light, whereas the 4.0 images did not; thus there seems to be cooler tones in the 4.0 overall. As you noted below, you stated using this mostly for video, which I do as well. For video alone, I wonder if you'd go with the 4.0 instead of the 2.8?
Thank you so much! Yep definitely had flatter lighting with the f4 lens. Sun was in and out of the clouds through the comparison. I think the f4 version is perfect for video especially on full frame. I use the C70 a lot so the 2.8 comes in handy there, otherwise I really like the F4 versions of all the RF zooms. Thank you for watching!
@@JamesReader I just came back from England so I know the challenge with the clouds, though it makes for far more interesting lighting than where I live with the constant deep blue sky. I hadn't thought about the F4 working better on a full frame sensor vs Super 35mm for video. Great point. I wonder how much more light sensitivity you get, maybe a half stop, in comparison between the two? Keep the videos coming, and thanks for sharing the images and data with us, that's really generous. I'm going to look at your archives for portrait touchup videos as I love your post work.
@@JamesReader 那么，只是拍照，用F4还是2.8？
Excellent job. Great comparisons. Beautiful images. THANK YOU!!!
Thank you!
What a lens and what a model.
Excellent video, trying to make up my mind between the 2 lenses myself.
You can’t go wrong with either! Wish I could keep both.
Fantastic real world review... great work.
Thank you Richard!
It's interesting that the 2.8 has the ring layout that it does. As far as I can tell, starting at the lens mount, zoom-focus-control is the RF standard, with the exception of the 100-500 which is focus-control-zoom, and this 2.8, which is control-focus-zoom. I don't have either, but I feel like that would mess with muscle memory a bit.
It certainly does! It’s the only lens I have with this layout. Luckily I don’t really use it often anyway. Thank you for watching Brent.
As a photographer I don't see much difference and I've seen something that Canon hasn't made much change in these lenses, that's why I use my Canon R with EF lenses and adapter and the photos are very beautiful, the RF lenses are too expensive
Great comparison. I've recently migrated over to Canon after shooting Sony for many years. Previous experience with the 70-200 2.8GM makes me now opt for the f4 Canon variant.
The GM is a fantastic lens, but it's not a very heavily used lens in my loadout, and when I do use it I pretty much never do wide open. I'm just not a huge fan of the obliterated background look. So, is the RF 2.8 optically better at F4 than the native F4 lens is at F4? Heck it better be for that price difference. Does it matter to me though?...nope. Not nearly as much as the savings on size, weight, and price.
These two lenses really are very close in performance, and I think your conclusion is spot-on that it really just depends on how much ambient light you typically shoot in. For indoor sports I wouldn't touch the F4, but for pretty much everything else it's the one I'd rather have.
EDIT: Here's one more thing to consider as well...which other lenses do you have that overlap this focal range. For instance, I have the big choady 28-70f2. So, if at 70mm I already have a faster, sharper zoom, and if the 70-200 variants perform increasingly similarly as they approach the tele end...not much sense in the 2.8, for me anyway.
Totally agree with you. The F4 is such a fantastic lens. Any optical differences are so minor and totally outweighed by the build and handling of the lens. Canon did a great job with all their f4 zooms, some do the best lenses on the RF Mount.
Great comparison.
Any idea whether there will be similar differences for the sony/sigma lineup on sony camera? The difference is not so stark between 70-200 f2.8 & f4, it seems.
Comments welcome.
Very well made comparison. Quite helpful.
Thank you for watching!
Both are awesome lenses . I’m gonna go with the F4 trinity. 14-35, 24-105, 70-200 all F4.
Great choice! Some of Canons best lenses in my opinion
How come the sun always seems to be out for the f2.8, but behind a cloud for the f4?
Great review! The f4 is an incredible lens and by your video I can see it's worthy.
big thanks for all your comparisons 15-35/ 70-200. Got both of them in the 2.8 version. Your video to the 24-70/ 28-70 is also very helpful !!
its my next purchase for weddings/events...but i cant decide which one haha.
Thank you! That’s a very hard choice, I know you will be very happy with either, both amazing lenses.
OMG the 85mm at 1.2 is just another level, If I could afford it I would go for 85mm for sure. for events or sports 70-200 comes handy but for portrait 85mm is king of bokeh.
Many thanks for this detailed comparison
rf70-200 F4 IS USM is the best rf zoom lens .
Just wondering what you think would be a better choice for a hobbyist photographer who doesn't shoot in low light, but like to shoot birds.
Hey Gerry - for a hobbyist I would definitely go for the F4 version. I just wonder if it would be enough reach for bird photography? I would choose between the 70-200 F4 and the RF 100-400 f5.6 - f8
@@JamesReader There is also the Canon RF 200-800 zoom which has been sold out in many parts of the world all year. The fact it's been sold out all year means it must be Canon's biggest selling new lens ever.
Really good comparison. Makes me feel much better about my purchase of the F4. I just upgraded to an R6 from an old 70d, and I'm just starting to build out my photo business. The $1100 I saved was spent towards an RF 24-70 f2.8, and the two are an amazing duo. I don't think these small differences are a big deal for me as a new pro using L glass for the first time.
One question for you - I'm looking to complete my kit with a 3rd lens being an RF prime. I do car photography and people/pet portraits. Would you recommend the 50mm 1.2, 85mm 1.2 or the 135mm 1.8 to finish my kit?
I have to recommend the 50 1.2! If you’re gonna have just one prime, it’s probably the most useful and versatile. It has you covered for group shots, head shots, establishing shots, everything. It’s my most used lens.
It’s a huge significant difference between F2.8 and F4 version. However, you can’t see it clearly because this is a R5 which captures high megapixel photos. R5 is a true monster and itself provides great images with most of lenses. Plus, this is a close portraiture setup. Model stands kinda close to the camera.
You would see how differently they perform when pair with lower megapixel bodies as R6, R8, R10, RP,…and when you shoot birds, sports, far distance objects. The first difference you could see would be the background (grainy for F4) and the depth of colors.
So just work more and save money for f2.8 if you don’t want to sell the f4 and make an upgrade in future.
They’re both beautiful, but where the 2.8 excels will be in low light situations where a lot of professionals shoots in.
It seems like you shot the f2.8 in way better lighting. On the f2.8 the sunlight is peaking through the trees and on the model. Whereas the f4 looks like it was shot in the shade.
That’s true. Sun was in and out of the clouds, we did wait for better light but due to time constraints had to move on. Luckily for the purpose of sharpness and background separation I think they serve their purpose, the shots later in the video also have more identical lighting. I still think the f4 tends to render a bit cooler, I find the same with the 14-35 f4. Thank you for watching!
Amazing content as usual! Thank you so much!
Thank you Matthew!
For indoor weddings have you found a issue with f4 and auto focus? Also later at weddings one the dance floor they turn down the lights have you found a issue with f4 auto focus? Thank you.
85mm f1.2 is totally outstanding. I have 85 f1.2 and 70-200 f4, but f1.2 always makes a special thing and it makes me stop to buy 70-200 f2.8
What I don't understand is why there are sun rays on the model with 2.8 but not with f4, is this a defect of the lens or was it taken when the sun was out? 🤨
I bought the 70-200 f4 after borrowing a 70-200 f2.8 for a weekend. The f4 is so compact and lightweight that I end up taking it on trips where I wouldn’t consider the f2.8.
Really nice video. You are the best !
Thank you so much!
Your model is super pretty.
Another great video James, I recently purchased the RF70-200 f/2.8. When I was considering which of the two to purchase, many of the reviews came to the same conclusion the f/4 was a very good lens and almost comparable to the f/2.8. The f/4 would have suited me however I have a history of buying the cheaper lens and then selling to buy the more expensive version - which usually means paying more in the longer term. What made my decision to go with the f/2.8 was FOMO on the extra stop of light and I was fortunate as a hobbyist I could afford the more expensive lens which should mean I keep this for a long long time and don't second guess whether the f/2.8 would have been better. This is easily my favour lens now.
Thank you for watching Mark. You echo the exact reasons I went with the 2.8 and honestly I don't regret it as I would of ended up with it eventually if I went with the F4. As you say, easily one of my favourite lenses and it is compact enough.
In fact, at Calumet in Germany the 2.8 costs today 3199 euro. This is twice as much as the f4 , and even more expensive as the canon store . Unfortunately it is not only about bokeh, 2.8 delivers as twice as much light as the f4 for indoor situations. I have to rent it if necessary , can' t buy one.
RF prices seem to be creeping up. Have you thought about one of the EF 70-200 2.8? They function really nicely with the EF adapter.
Awesome review!
Why are you not using the viewfinder
James, you have very nice soft voice and cute accent. Imagine people have to stand close to you to hear what you say :)
Thank you! 😃
Thx a lot for this review. Now I know that I can sell my f2.8 version of EF lens and without a doubt buy a f4 RF version.
Really glad to of helped!
Thank you for sharing your images it has helped me a great deal I've just downloaded the photos and the one where you were standing quite far back at 200 mm photo length with the F4 lens I've just cropped in to the Model eye just to see how far I could crop in and get a small image how to do a little bit of sharpening on it after cropping in so far but what it told me was that the R5 camera is the one for me
No problem at all, I’m really glad the images helped. You’re gonna love the R5
Another great comparison.
Thank you!
RF 18-150 kit lens zoomed at 120mm on a crop sensor camera to match the 200mm on an RF 70-200mm L 2.8 on a full frame camera.
will i get the same facial and background compression?
(not talking about background blur)
(Consider same shooting situation for both)
Yes you will get the same background and facial compression as you’ll be stood at the same distance from your subject as you would be with the 200mm.
Thanks for the great review, I think I'll move towards F4
Thank you for watching!
Great analysis. Many thanks 🙏 🙏😊😊
I also have the lens Canon of EF 70-200 mm 2.8 of new generation.
The f2.8 technically wins on paper, technically. But it's really hard to justify the price difference compared to the f4.
One big win the f2.8 has over the f4 is low light. Oh, and the weight factor too.
I'd have to stick with the f4 for now. Thanks for the comparisons. Very informative
Thank you for watching!
Awesome review! Thank you.
Thank you Lisa!
Hi James. I can’t seem to find your comparison of Image Stabilization between the 2. One better than the other ? Thanks 😊
Hi Robert. Didn’t see any noticeable difference in stabilisation between the two. Both are great! Thanks for watching.
As i shoot my boudoir stuff at 5.6-f8 the f4 would be it for me. I want to have more than one eye in focus🤣 i tried faster lenses and to me it looks ridiculous if only one eye is in focus and this is what happens if you shoot wide open