Totally agree. I really like your take on how you use it for travel photography. Not to mention the stigma of not having all 2.8 glass. I was so glad I found this lens for just over $1,100 on the refurbish site. I thought I was taking a chance with a "not 2.8" lens, but this is now nearly always in my bag, along with the 14-35 f/4 for a similar price. And for pictures inside, the 85 f/2 is a great budget option.
I have the 2.8 version, and love it. No doubt the f/4 is great as well. Regarding the external focus, I know that has concerns, but every time I easily fit my 70-200 in my "walk around pack", I am very grateful for its size.
It’s important that photographers learn that the size of lenses you travel with can impact the photos you are able to capture. Took me a long time to learn. Same is true for the RF versions of 14-35/4 vs the 15-35/2.8 . Thank you and take care.
I use this lens for wildlife and travel. Just like the many external and internal zoom lenses I've owned before it, weather sealing has never been an issue nor are there widespread reports of external zooms being more problematic in adverse conditions than their internal zoom counterparts. I've asked my CPS rep about this in the past and his response was that L series lenses are all weather sealed to the same standard. As the design changes, so do the methods of weather sealing.
I’m so happy someone finally talked about the external zooming haha. I personally don’t buy any zooms that externally zoom for reasons you mentioned but also for other factors.
I shot a football match at my college on the old sony 70-200 f4. Even for high action sports, I was shooting at ISO500 at f4, with very acceptable blurry backgrounds. There really isn't much reason for me to spend over 1000$ more just for a 2.8 and some image quality improvements.
@@JosephMartin you mentioned a bit of this in your video, but I also have to use the clarity tool to soften some of the bokeh. It’s not the prettiest to be honest but softening it in post gets rid of the less attractive harshness of the bokeh.
@@JosephMartin I buy almost all my gear used. I’m a Platinum CPS member. As soon as I receive the used gear I send it into canon for a clean and check. That way if there’s anything wrong\ with the gear I send it back with proof from canon with the issue.
Think of this way wild life photographer will pay a lot of money for fast big lens 500mm f4 600mm f4 800mm f5.6 and these to them are very fast. So a tiny 200mm f4 is more then fast enough.
I’ve never bought an L lens before until I got this lens. After I nearly got a fever from deciding on whether to get L lenses or a superzoom (which was a huge decision on what path to take), I made the jump. I tested the lens more than your average reviewer would. I tested this thing so hard it took me over a week. There was substantiel field curvature at 70mm, and it didnt perform better than a sharp 50mm 1.8, no matter the circumstances. This was partly my fault, as I literally hyped it higher than a prime lens haha. However, apart from just that, its absolutely incredible. Out in the field, the IQ is superb. I truly understand now what people mean by liking a tighter frame around their subjects. I’ve never had any issues with external zooms. These zooms have a way to filter out dust, and ironically, even primes can get dust inside, so I wouldnt worry too much. Now mind you, I live in EU so let me tell you that photography here is seriously expensive. But this lens is worth the price imo. Ive been thinking of pairing it with a soon to release rf 28-70 f2.8 or just keep the 28mm prime and get the 24-105 f4l, but im unsure.
I’m really excited to see what that 28-70 f/2.8 will be like. I’m sure optically it will be great as it’s a Canon lens and all of their RF glass is sharp at least in the middle. What I’m worried about is distortion. A standard f/2.8 full frame zoom at this size is going to cut corners somewhere and I’m worried Canon might go overboard, however it looks quite good in all of the samples I’ve seen so far. That lens might make me switch to full frame sooner than I thought, however I love my R10!
@@justinburley8659 yea im a bit worried too. On one hand, corners are pretty good from the previews, but the option to turn off distortion correction is greyed out in settings, which is always a bad sign…
I was let down by the zoom range. In comparison to my ef ii version it stopped zooming at 200 where my ef was at 150, so the zoom range is effectively shorter which was the reason why I returned it. Perhaps the ef ii is longer, doesn‘t matter since I am sticking to the longer end more often.
Totally agree. I really like your take on how you use it for travel photography. Not to mention the stigma of not having all 2.8 glass. I was so glad I found this lens for just over $1,100 on the refurbish site. I thought I was taking a chance with a "not 2.8" lens, but this is now nearly always in my bag, along with the 14-35 f/4 for a similar price. And for pictures inside, the 85 f/2 is a great budget option.
I have the 2.8 version, and love it. No doubt the f/4 is great as well. Regarding the external focus, I know that has concerns, but every time I easily fit my 70-200 in my "walk around pack", I am very grateful for its size.
i have this lens almost one year ,newer have problem with weather sealing ,works fantastic
It’s important that photographers learn that the size of lenses you travel with can impact the photos you are able to capture. Took me a long time to learn. Same is true for the RF versions of 14-35/4 vs the 15-35/2.8 . Thank you and take care.
I use this lens for wildlife and travel. Just like the many external and internal zoom lenses I've owned before it, weather sealing has never been an issue nor are there widespread reports of external zooms being more problematic in adverse conditions than their internal zoom counterparts. I've asked my CPS rep about this in the past and his response was that L series lenses are all weather sealed to the same standard. As the design changes, so do the methods of weather sealing.
Good to know!
I’m so happy someone finally talked about the external zooming haha. I personally don’t buy any zooms that externally zoom for reasons you mentioned but also for other factors.
What other factors make you shy away from external zooms?
@@JosephMartin better balancing for video and gimble use. I find they look better too
one of my favorite lens
Very nice and honest video. Thanks
Balanced, fair, logical. Nice Vid🙏
I shot a football match at my college on the old sony 70-200 f4. Even for high action sports, I was shooting at ISO500 at f4, with very acceptable blurry backgrounds. There really isn't much reason for me to spend over 1000$ more just for a 2.8 and some image quality improvements.
Great video
Thanks for sharing
Love the content and quality of both your audio and video
Appreciate the practical perspective as well
Glad you liked it! Thanks for watching and for the comment.
The new RF 70-200 f/4 L IS is a performer. Better than my EF 70-200 f/4 L IS, but I only paid $375. There are good options for everyone now.
Чувак я полностью с тобой согласен, вес и гарабиты роляют больше чем бокешка и один стоп выдержки
Got mine used for 950. It’s a steal.
Holy cow that’s a GREAT deal!
@@JosephMartin you mentioned a bit of this in your video, but I also have to use the clarity tool to soften some of the bokeh. It’s not the prettiest to be honest but softening it in post gets rid of the less attractive harshness of the bokeh.
@@JosephMartin I buy almost all my gear used. I’m a Platinum CPS member. As soon as I receive the used gear I send it into canon for a clean and check. That way if there’s anything wrong\ with the gear I send it back with proof from canon with the issue.
Think of this way wild life photographer will pay a lot of money for fast big lens 500mm f4 600mm f4 800mm f5.6 and these to them are very fast. So a tiny 200mm f4 is more then fast enough.
I’ve never bought an L lens before until I got this lens.
After I nearly got a fever from deciding on whether to get L lenses or a superzoom (which was a huge decision on what path to take), I made the jump.
I tested the lens more than your average reviewer would. I tested this thing so hard it took me over a week.
There was substantiel field curvature at 70mm, and it didnt perform better than a sharp 50mm 1.8, no matter the circumstances. This was partly my fault, as I literally hyped it higher than a prime lens haha.
However, apart from just that, its absolutely incredible. Out in the field, the IQ is superb. I truly understand now what people mean by liking a tighter frame around their subjects.
I’ve never had any issues with external zooms. These zooms have a way to filter out dust, and ironically, even primes can get dust inside, so I wouldnt worry too much.
Now mind you, I live in EU so let me tell you that photography here is seriously expensive. But this lens is worth the price imo.
Ive been thinking of pairing it with a soon to release rf 28-70 f2.8 or just keep the 28mm prime and get the 24-105 f4l, but im unsure.
I’m really excited to see what that 28-70 f/2.8 will be like. I’m sure optically it will be great as it’s a Canon lens and all of their RF glass is sharp at least in the middle. What I’m worried about is distortion. A standard f/2.8 full frame zoom at this size is going to cut corners somewhere and I’m worried Canon might go overboard, however it looks quite good in all of the samples I’ve seen so far.
That lens might make me switch to full frame sooner than I thought, however I love my R10!
@@justinburley8659 yea im a bit worried too.
On one hand, corners are pretty good from the previews, but the option to turn off distortion correction is greyed out in settings, which is always a bad sign…
I was let down by the zoom range. In comparison to my ef ii version it stopped zooming at 200 where my ef was at 150, so the zoom range is effectively shorter which was the reason why I returned it. Perhaps the ef ii is longer, doesn‘t matter since I am sticking to the longer end more often.
What do you mean? They’re both 70-200mm lenses?
WTF you on about dude
:3