NOTE: The old lens DOES have a tripod collar, I just took it off years ago and forgot about it 😂. Buy the NEW Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L Z at SDP.io/C70200Z Buy the OLDER Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L at SDP.io/C70200R
The older version is great for travel. The compact size makes a huge difference. It is super sharp, and I haven't noticed any issues with lens flares. I like the white color too. it may be the best value 70-200 f.2.8 Canon ever made. The new version would be great for video and studio shoot. The older version is best for travel, photojournalism, and value.
The older RF 70-200mm F2.8 does come with a fully removable tripod collar. I do like the fact that Canon is keeping both lenses current for different use cases and customers. I own the original and wouldn't want the larger footprint of the newer lens for the amount of time I use it.
I have the original 70-200 F2.8 and the F4 variant and they both have tripod collar, I don't understand why you would say it doesn't. Mine came with. It's also waaay smaller and more preferable in a backpack. I will not upgrade to the Z internal zoom lens anytime soon. The image quality from both the f2.8 and f4 is stellar.
Great comparison. At the end though, you are comparing the RF 100-500 @500 vs the 70-200@ 400. Don't think it changes the answer that the 100-500 is sharper but think it suggests that the advantage is pretty significant. Pls keep up the independent reviews, we all benefit greatly from the work you all do!
In the end, the more sensible choice is to go with the EF 70-200mm f2.8 L (II OR III) and use an adapter. + TC always fits that lens, internal zoom, foot, cheaper than the new RF lenses ...
I don't think I've seen anyone do a chart comparison for sharpness between the RF and EF. I know that the adapted EF does a great job on my R6, but it does miss focus occasionally.
@swistedfilms Indeed, there may be some differences, but would they really be noticeable without pixel peeping? 🤔 I am no pro, so even if I would miss a shot here and there out of many burst shots, it won't make me lose money... but so far so good, I can't complain about the EF version (using the R5). To me, the little difference I could get from the RF version vs the EF wouldn't justify the cost of the new one. I may get the new RF some day but right now, I am very happy with the EF version (+ I can also use the circular polarizer EF to RF adapter, which I find quite useful vs using a CP on the front of the lens. Obviously, no equivalent exists for the RF lenses)
Version II of the EF 70-200 2.8 on a 7D was my personal reference for sharpness for a long time. I was so impressed with that combo that I always compared future purchases I was considering against them. I haven’t had either of these for many years, but my point is it’s crazy how good the newest equipment is and one really needs to consider why they are upgrading. A lesson learned after too much buying and selling.
I'm sticking with the smaller one. I'm not a sports shooter and the compact size actually makes a huge difference in that it fits in my bag vertically. I can therefore take it all over the world and fit in an additional lens.
The 70-200mm is my absolute go to lens for almost everything, I just love it. I still use the EF version since I wasn't convinced on the RF, this new Z version though.. I'll probably buy it when there is some Canon discount or promotion or something.
I have it, I actually received one of the first ones that was released. it's a great lens. I have been doing more video work, and this works fantastic, This lens (the RF 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM Z lens), my RF 24-105 f/2.8 and my RF 85mm f/1.2 are the only lenses I need, I have sold everything else and only use these 3 lenses. anytime I need any other lenses, I just rent them. and the 24-105 f/2.8 is basically good enough to in certain circumstances to be a macro lens especially if you zoom and crop.
I have the RF 70-200 without the Z. It's a fantastically sharp lens and so light coming from the EF version. I didn't think there was a sharpness difference worthy of an upgrade in your photos, however I always use The Digital Picture website for lens comparisons and there the difference seems more obvious. So the new one is only a little heavier, but the extra length is annoying. However in the wet, the original extendable RF lens suffers in damp conditions as I have found. I got condensation in mine and the lens stopped working for a short time whilst it dried out. The really big thing for me is that I also own the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens and haven't personally been tempted by anything else as it's such a great lens. This Z lens though looks almost exactly the same at 400mm with the convertor on compared to the 100-400. Both at f5.6. I don't know though if the Z lens has any focussing restrictions with the 2x convertor on compared to the 100-400 lens. Very tempting to sell my 100-400 and my original 70-200 and just have the Z lens with the convertor!
I have the non-Z 70 to 200 RF lens and I love it because it is, in my amateur opinion, so sharp. I did buy the RF 70-200 Z lens and really did not like the extra weight. If you’re just carrying that lens, it’s no problem, but I’m carrying a whole bag full of stuff around Yosemite. Then when I saw the spot for the attachable Zoom drive motor, I realized the Z lens is probably more for video than for everyday use by still photographers. So I sold it a few weeks after I bought it, and of course at a loss. I knew that every time I pack my backpack I’m going to take the lightest lenses I can find. That means I leave a lot of good glass at home when I cross the country to take pictures in California. The RF 24-105 is always the first lens in the bag. Increasingly, I hear that the pros pretty much take one lens and laugh at the amateurs for bringing a whole bag of lenses.
Sorry you took a loss, but I'm sure that whoever got your Z loves it! And yeah, that 24-105 f/2.8 is SUPER versatile for events. I'm going to get one someday. I love my 24-70 but having that extra range is just too handy. Have you had a chance to take that 100-500 out into the wild? It's not the fastest lens but it's insanely sharp, even on an R5. My son goes out and regularly gets amazing shots down at Point Reyes in California. I keep playing the lottery so I can afford that 600MM f/4 but until I win that 100-500 does an amazing job!
why the heck are you bringing huge 70-200 2.8(!) for hiking? lol it's kinda s... not smart you know better take some 100-400 - it's incredibly light and useful for landscapes
New Z lens looks great. Glad you compared the focus breathing, it was part of the reason I stayed with my EF 70-200mm F2.8 mkiii, which I use for portraits all the time. I'd say it would be cool to see a comparison to the EF version, just the mkiii, but I feel like the comparison to the older RF model tells me what I need to know as far is image quality. That price though, it's hard to justify it when the EF version still adapts flawlessly for like, 1/2 to 1/3 the price, and is still a top performing lens.
According to every RUclipsr camera review, the rumors websites and the comments sections of both of those... You are upset because Canon does NOT have native 3rd party lenses with auto focus! you can put up a good front in the comments section of this video, but we all know you're upset and considering switching to Sony because of how upset you are about having to adapt older EF lenses that are still great and suit your needs! think about it, you literally have to that the lens off of the adapter instead of the camera body! how upset are you about that entire process! 😂🤣
I just ordered this lens to replace my Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L III lens. The original RF equivalent didn’t seem like it would be that advantageous to upgrade to but with the Z version, that changed my mind. I photograph mainly sports and looking forward to trying this out when it comes in on Tuesday
Tony, I'm really glad you tested this new lens with the teleconverters-and critically, compared to the cropping and longer lens alternatives. It still kills me a little to see you handling the lenses with no back caps and the camera with the sensor exposed like that though... 😅
I upgraded to the new design for the shorter and faster throw and the compatibility with TCs. Having a 84-280 mm f4 lens in a pinch is a nice thing to have.
The shorter, easier zoom throw definitely appeals to me, but it’s quite hard to justify upgrading as I definitely bring the original 2.8 to events more often due to being easier to throw in a bag. Also, for less than the price of the new Z lens, I can pick up a good used copy of a 200 f2 that I’ve been eyeing up… now there’s a dilemma! 😅
Thank you for this Review! I'm looking to buy my first L Series lens. I do wildlife primarily with the RF 100-400 and looking to expand to other things and knowing I can use an extender makes me feel better until I can add another quality lens to my camera bag.
I probably would have bought the black “Z” model with internal zoom if it was available at the time, but don’t need it enough to take a loss selling the original lens. At least the original lens is more compact when the situation warrants it. My particular copy is very sharp already, so no complaints there.
I shoot mostly landscapes with my 70-200 and don't have a huge need for f/2.8. For that reason, I bought the RF 70-200 f/4, which is much smaller and lighter than either of the current RF f/2.8 options. (At the time I bought the f4, the Z wasn't out yet, n to that it would have changed my decision) If I did get into sports shooting, and IF I felt compelled to upgrade or buy a second 70-200, I would probably get the newer Z model, if for no other reason than the fact that it can be used with a teleconverter, thus greatly increasing its versatility.
Nice comparison, thanks! So the new lens is better in almost all aspects. Despite that, if I didn't already have the old one and was going to buy such lens, I would still buy the old version. Its form-factor is just so easy packable.
I have no doubt that this is a fair assessment. That being said, I'm loving the performance of my "older" version and its relative stowage ease in my pack.
I am not a pro but I do have the old 70-200 and I got AFTER I seen what the new lens had to offer. The OG was 2499 at the time and the new was 2999, so what do i get for the $500? A aperture ring on the lens. I dont need that I have a wheel on the camera. The option to use a teleconverter is nice but i got this lens for the 2.8 aperture. This lens we use for my sons basketball games, b-days, weddings and school events. The internal zoom is a pro and a con, the room you save in the bag you could drop a nifty 50 in the bag. All that being said, I would love to see some of the negative things you brought up about the old lens be addressed in a Mark II of it. Your point that it might not be a true 200mm is good info for sure
I have both the Canon RF 100-500 and the Canon RF 70-200 "z". I'm wondering whether to sell the first one and buy a 2x teleconverter. I also photograph sports, but not only that.
Get the TC and use it for a while, they aren't all that expensive and re-sell pretty well (and it will work on both lenses if you want). If you find you aren't really using the 100-500mm anymore then sell it. Maybe it's just the video quality on youtube, but it did not look even close to my eyes, the TC on the 70-200mm was clearly not as sharp as the 100-500mm alone.
Depends on your use case, but if you are shooting above 200 a lot - much of the time you'll actually be at a lower f stop w the 100-500, and then you have another 100. Also as you can see from Tony's video - the 100-500 is sharper.
Older version’s smaller size wins for me. Whatever optical differences there may be are for pixel-peepers. In reality, nobody will be able to tell the difference between the two files, so it’ll come down to a choice between convenience and functionality (video). Internal zoom is nice, but not worth the price difference to me.
Was about to say the same. Actually it was an advantage that you are able to completely remove it on the old lens instead of just the foot on the new one.
@@TonyAndChelsea I think people know this, they are just saying it to say it! there are at least 5 comments right now about the old one having a removable tripod collar.
I’m rocking my EF 70-200 iii. I really didn’t like the first RF version and its telescopic mechanism. I love the new Z version but $3k is steep for me. I find that I gravitate towards my RF 85 1.2 and my 28-70 2.0 more than I reach for my 70-200.
Last month I took my ef 100-400mm L Mark II lens out to photograph birds and I noticed a Big white speck in the middle of the lense. I said to myself, I'm not sending this lens back to Canon to have them remove that speck. So I decided to loosen the friction ring and tried zooming the lens in and out really fast to see if I could blow that speck off of the lens and Thank God it worked. That external zoom design works but the internal zoom is Far Better of a design.
@kevindiaz3459 I was able to remove the speck from the lens by quickly zooming the lens in and out. The air being sucked in and out of the lens blew the speck off of the lense element so it wasn't an issue.
@@chesterdilley1274 I mean, I read that the first time. I'm guessing you never saw it on your images, which is fine either way, I was just curious. Most dust on the front elements isn't an issue anyway. It's when it gets on the rear or sensor that it is a problem, or just gets to be too much.
@kevindiaz3459 After that I didn't see that spec in the lens. I'm shooting wide open so if the speck was still there I don't think it would show up on the images.
it actually works well for video, I don't like that it doesn't click (for photo purposes), but it allows you to set the control rings as something else. I think Canon reintroduced the focus ring because they are finding out that the RF mounts are way more capable than what they thought before and are going to find even more uses for the lenses and adding more features.
When you test the lenses in your studio do you test them with or without the lens hood on? I think most people including yourself would shoot either of these with the hood on outdoors and then any flaring and reduced contrast between them might be minimal.
The hood doesn't make any difference when you're shooting directly into a light source. The hood only helps when there's light shining in from outside the lens' field of view... the hood helps by casting shade on the surface of the lens because that stray light can also cause flaring.
@@TonyAndChelsea Tony/Chelsea, if you ever get the opportunity to speak with a Canon rep, mention to him/her that your viewers are requesting the black option :)
I really appreciate the extended chart sharpness tests. I know they don't always tell the whole story on a lens but they do give us a useful look into what we can expect. I wish you could compare the sharpness to the older EF 70-200 Mark III so I could know if it's worth upgrading or if I should just keep my adapter. Also, have you had a chance to test the new 16-28? Thanks!
Canon cameras have a different hot shoe. Please make a video of varying speed light flashes in R8 or R50 or R6 Mark 2. Or does Godox work fine as Canon Speed lights?
I still use the EF 70-200mm F2.8 mkiii; used the mkii up until last year at some point when I was able to grab the mkiii in a refurb sale for 1100 USD. Still top performance lenses, the extending zoom RF model IMO is only as good as the EF versions optically and inferior in almost all other categories, save for being compact and the "advantage" of the superior stabilization (which it very case dependent). The Z version does look to be superior, but at the same time, the price pretty well prevents mere mortals from having anything to do with it, and the price clearly is a reflection of the "Z" aspect of it. So really, unless shooting serious level videography, or you just have to not use adapters anymore for whatever reason, the EF models are still a completely viable option even for working pros. I don't think it would happen, but Canon has in the past had multiple versions of the 70-200mm on market at the same time. It's just that useful of a lens that they can effectively sell like, 4 versions of it at the same time. Would love to see this lens with the "Z" stuff removed and at a price point closer to 2200-2400. I don't think it's likely, but I can hope!
@TonyAndChelsea I find the subject of lesser focal length as stated interesting. Do I remember correctly that you already made a video about this some years ago?
wonder if the dji mic was off or Tony forgot to use the audio. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if this was shot by an iPhone. Nothing wrong with it though, big fan.
Oh good grief they obviously mean which use cases is it most useful for. I find that kind of information useful. Y'all are just ridiculous sometimes with these dumb comments.
just because you can buy it, doesn't mean you should. Even if you WANT to spend 3k on a single lens, there are probably 50+ options across all manufactueres. According to your logic, if you want to spend 3k, you have to spend 150k+. Please try to not use the word "anyone" so damn blindly. Especially if you try to complain about multiple people while having such an unqualified statement.
Indeed, but it's not for those who want to do macro, wildlife (especially birding), or some sporting events that require more reach with large aperture (similar need as wildlife). Not the best choice for nightsky and milkyway shots... So it doesn't hurt to let the people know what it's mainly used for. As many people won't even know the effect and capability of a lens just by looking at it. Many (using only smarthphones) will think the lens is so "big", therefore you should see "very far" and likely be able to photograph planets with it.
My life is not dependent on the photo I take. It’s more a hobby for me so really tough choice…I probably will keep using the old version as I know I’ll be more intended to bring it out due to the smaller size….too often that my “clients” either look at photos from phone or from 4x6 print and they won’t see a difference what so ever….😂
naw bro! you need a new RF lens! According to every RUclipsr camera review, the rumors websites and the comments sections of both of those... You are upset because Canon does NOT have native 3rd party lenses with auto focus! you can put up a good front in the comments section of this video, but we all know you're upset and considering switching to Sony because of how upset you are about having to adapt older EF lenses that are still great and suit your needs! think about it, you literally have to that the lens off of the adapter instead of the camera body! how upset are you about that entire process! 😂🤣
Canon, enough making 70-200 mm lenses. We got the first two... they were great... enough now. We need other lenses like the 15mm TS-R or a small 50mm f1.4 that costs around 500euro. (the rf 50mm1.8 sucks). And we also need a retro style camera like the fuji's. Come on!! Move, move, move. ps: the older non Z is a lot better when you travel. And i do not know a photographer that doesn't travel. And it was great in the studio as well. So actually there was absolutely no need for a new 70-200. Stop loosing time overlapping lenses that we already have and are already perfect.
Why does Canon call their lenses Z? Sounds like some Nikon jealousy there. Sony had G lenses too, after Nikon did. Weird... 26 letters in the alphabet to choose from.
The white color makes you look more "professional".... This is dumb, but perception of clients matters... Because no consumer lenses are white, they automatically look like something that must be better to the untrained eye. And untrained eyes are the ones that usually hire you!
Well people watch on very small screens... A large portion of people watch vertical on their phone. For these people to see the difference that might be obvious in a print, I gotta zoom deep.
@@TonyAndChelsea Tony this is unacceptable! you need to tell your viewer that they can only watch your channel from a 102 inch TV in 16K with a 35 speak surround sound system that makes your voice sound like the voice of an angel and really highlights those DJI mics! 😂
Thing is, most modern lenses and cameras combined with today’s processing possibilities has made the traditional means of measuring “ better” less and less relevant. Both lenses in this example do the job of putting an image on a sensor exceptionally well and while the gear never did make the photo or the photographer, the benefits of one over the other is likely more related to cost, weight, size, versatility more so than sharpness. Possibly the relevant differences between these two is size, ability to use a converter and cost and here I’m thinking about the possible supply of used 70-200 non Z lenses available driven in part because we still think more sharpness will make our photos better.
@@darrelltheriault5793 you are correct for the most part, but it depends on what field you're in! I am a commercial and fashion photographer so The Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM Z is the better choice for me. Since I have to deal with fabric that is sometimes a headache, it does help to have that extra detail and sharpness. it's also the same thing when dealing with the models eyes, make up and other factors. Will most people notice it if they love my image? No not really, but I notice it, and the photoshoot that I did last month, that model and editor noticed the difference. Would the average person notice? probably NOT. takes a trained professional to notice what is different especially while pixel peeping (because we have to go over details during the editing process). So is the new Z model for everyone? NOPE! but neither was the 24-105 f/2.8, The 85mm f/1.2, or the 100-300 f/2.8. It really depends on your needs. if you already have the version 1 and you're not in any specific field that needs it, you are correct, no one will know the difference, but when you are, it's definitely needed. because all of those other factors, size, cost, weight and etc... don't mean anything to me. I just need the best of the best image (which was why I was considering Hasselblad for a long time, but I don't want to carry 2 systems).
Canon is going to charge you a monthly fee. For 1080 P who knowd where they will stop. After they have already removed. Many needed features, all their compition for the win.
yes yes they are! and remember Canon Bad! Sony good! so use your Sony entry level camera and talk about how bad Canon is and how good Sony is! blah blah blah bad canon! naughty canon make bad decisions! make up more rumors blah blah blah on how bad canon is! no facts, just bad canon! bad canon! do better canon! give me everything I want and you'll still be bad! 😂
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
NOTE: The old lens DOES have a tripod collar, I just took it off years ago and forgot about it 😂.
Buy the NEW Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L Z at SDP.io/C70200Z
Buy the OLDER Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L at SDP.io/C70200R
I was wondering about that... I had the RF version and do remember a collar on it.
The older version is great for travel. The compact size makes a huge difference. It is super sharp, and I haven't noticed any issues with lens flares. I like the white color too. it may be the best value 70-200 f.2.8 Canon ever made. The new version would be great for video and studio shoot. The older version is best for travel, photojournalism, and value.
I got the older lens because of how well it packs. Not just for travel, but any gig that I take it to. I have no complaints either.
"and value" 😂
Fully agree. The size is everything
The older RF 70-200mm F2.8 does come with a fully removable tripod collar.
I do like the fact that Canon is keeping both lenses current for different use cases and customers. I own the original and wouldn't want the larger footprint of the newer lens for the amount of time I use it.
The older 70-200 rf does come with a tripod collar, it's removable. I own it.
Can confirm the old does have a tripod collar that came with it.
Agreed
Same
yeah I have the new one, that doesn't bother me, but for others it does. Go with what works for you.
LOL I think he lost his
I just got this new lens and I am blown away by it. I did not expect it to so darn good as it is!
Focal shrinkage. "I was in the pool!", I was in the pool!"
Nice Senfield reference!
Chelsea: It shrinks?
Tony: Like a frightened turtle.
😁😁😁
I recently bought the old RF70-200 2.8 and I love it… pretty Sharp. I was meant to buy the Z version but i decided to save money for more equipment.
I have the original 70-200 F2.8 and the F4 variant and they both have tripod collar, I don't understand why you would say it doesn't. Mine came with. It's also waaay smaller and more preferable in a backpack. I will not upgrade to the Z internal zoom lens anytime soon. The image quality from both the f2.8 and f4 is stellar.
The original 70-200 F2.8 comes with the tripod collar. The F4 version doesn't. I owned the F4 before recently buying the F2.8 (non Z) version.
@@HigherAEM the F4 variant is too small to need a collar. It won't offset the balance of the camera on a tripod.
Great comparison. At the end though, you are comparing the RF 100-500 @500 vs the 70-200@ 400. Don't think it changes the answer that the 100-500 is sharper but think it suggests that the advantage is pretty significant. Pls keep up the independent reviews, we all benefit greatly from the work you all do!
But the 100-500 is slow.
In the end, the more sensible choice is to go with the EF 70-200mm f2.8 L (II OR III) and use an adapter. + TC always fits that lens, internal zoom, foot, cheaper than the new RF lenses ...
I don't think I've seen anyone do a chart comparison for sharpness between the RF and EF. I know that the adapted EF does a great job on my R6, but it does miss focus occasionally.
@swistedfilms Indeed, there may be some differences, but would they really be noticeable without pixel peeping? 🤔 I am no pro, so even if I would miss a shot here and there out of many burst shots, it won't make me lose money... but so far so good, I can't complain about the EF version (using the R5). To me, the little difference I could get from the RF version vs the EF wouldn't justify the cost of the new one. I may get the new RF some day but right now, I am very happy with the EF version (+ I can also use the circular polarizer EF to RF adapter, which I find quite useful vs using a CP on the front of the lens. Obviously, no equivalent exists for the RF lenses)
@@ME2K23 That's what I'm thinking. It might not even be a new design. It could be the Mark III design with an RF mount.
Version II of the EF 70-200 2.8 on a 7D was my personal reference for sharpness for a long time. I was so impressed with that combo that I always compared future purchases I was considering against them. I haven’t had either of these for many years, but my point is it’s crazy how good the newest equipment is and one really needs to consider why they are upgrading. A lesson learned after too much buying and selling.
I'm sticking with the smaller one. I'm not a sports shooter and the compact size actually makes a huge difference in that it fits in my bag vertically. I can therefore take it all over the world and fit in an additional lens.
The 70-200mm is my absolute go to lens for almost everything, I just love it.
I still use the EF version since I wasn't convinced on the RF, this new Z version though.. I'll probably buy it when there is some Canon discount or promotion or something.
I have it, I actually received one of the first ones that was released. it's a great lens. I have been doing more video work, and this works fantastic, This lens (the RF 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM Z lens), my RF 24-105 f/2.8 and my RF 85mm f/1.2 are the only lenses I need, I have sold everything else and only use these 3 lenses. anytime I need any other lenses, I just rent them. and the 24-105 f/2.8 is basically good enough to in certain circumstances to be a macro lens especially if you zoom and crop.
Most succinct, informative review I have seen for any lens. Well done!
I have the RF 70-200 without the Z. It's a fantastically sharp lens and so light coming from the EF version. I didn't think there was a sharpness difference worthy of an upgrade in your photos, however I always use The Digital Picture website for lens comparisons and there the difference seems more obvious.
So the new one is only a little heavier, but the extra length is annoying. However in the wet, the original extendable RF lens suffers in damp conditions as I have found. I got condensation in mine and the lens stopped working for a short time whilst it dried out.
The really big thing for me is that I also own the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens and haven't personally been tempted by anything else as it's such a great lens. This Z lens though looks almost exactly the same at 400mm with the convertor on compared to the 100-400. Both at f5.6. I don't know though if the Z lens has any focussing restrictions with the 2x convertor on compared to the 100-400 lens.
Very tempting to sell my 100-400 and my original 70-200 and just have the Z lens with the convertor!
I have the non-Z 70 to 200 RF lens and I love it because it is, in my amateur opinion, so sharp. I did buy the RF 70-200 Z lens and really did not like the extra weight. If you’re just carrying that lens, it’s no problem, but I’m carrying a whole bag full of stuff around Yosemite. Then when I saw the spot for the attachable Zoom drive motor, I realized the Z lens is probably more for video than for everyday use by still photographers. So I sold it a few weeks after I bought it, and of course at a loss. I knew that every time I pack my backpack I’m going to take the lightest lenses I can find. That means I leave a lot of good glass at home when I cross the country to take pictures in California. The RF 24-105 is always the first lens in the bag. Increasingly, I hear that the pros pretty much take one lens and laugh at the amateurs for bringing a whole bag of lenses.
Sorry you took a loss, but I'm sure that whoever got your Z loves it! And yeah, that 24-105 f/2.8 is SUPER versatile for events. I'm going to get one someday. I love my 24-70 but having that extra range is just too handy.
Have you had a chance to take that 100-500 out into the wild? It's not the fastest lens but it's insanely sharp, even on an R5. My son goes out and regularly gets amazing shots down at Point Reyes in California. I keep playing the lottery so I can afford that 600MM f/4 but until I win that 100-500 does an amazing job!
why the heck are you bringing huge 70-200 2.8(!) for hiking? lol it's kinda s... not smart you know
better take some 100-400 - it's incredibly light and useful for landscapes
New Z lens looks great. Glad you compared the focus breathing, it was part of the reason I stayed with my EF 70-200mm F2.8 mkiii, which I use for portraits all the time. I'd say it would be cool to see a comparison to the EF version, just the mkiii, but I feel like the comparison to the older RF model tells me what I need to know as far is image quality. That price though, it's hard to justify it when the EF version still adapts flawlessly for like, 1/2 to 1/3 the price, and is still a top performing lens.
According to every RUclipsr camera review, the rumors websites and the comments sections of both of those... You are upset because Canon does NOT have native 3rd party lenses with auto focus! you can put up a good front in the comments section of this video, but we all know you're upset and considering switching to Sony because of how upset you are about having to adapt older EF lenses that are still great and suit your needs! think about it, you literally have to that the lens off of the adapter instead of the camera body! how upset are you about that entire process! 😂🤣
@@TigaWould Was this meant to be a reply to me? What are you talking about?
@ It was me being sarcastic and mocking Photography RUclips. Nothing against you.
Can’t stand tromboning lenses I’m a Sony user now switching in from Canon 2019 Sony 70-200 lens is so good I have 2 of them 😉
We know bro! we know!
I just ordered this lens to replace my Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L III lens. The original RF equivalent didn’t seem like it would be that advantageous to upgrade to but with the Z version, that changed my mind. I photograph mainly sports and looking forward to trying this out when it comes in on Tuesday
The EF is still better. :-)
Tony, I'm really glad you tested this new lens with the teleconverters-and critically, compared to the cropping and longer lens alternatives. It still kills me a little to see you handling the lenses with no back caps and the camera with the sensor exposed like that though... 😅
Tony you look younger in that picture. Keep up the good work brother
That's how good the lens is! It subtracts years! 😂
Yeah I'm younger in every picture
@@TonyAndChelsea I really appreciate this.
I upgraded to the new design for the shorter and faster throw and the compatibility with TCs. Having a 84-280 mm f4 lens in a pinch is a nice thing to have.
The shorter, easier zoom throw definitely appeals to me, but it’s quite hard to justify upgrading as I definitely bring the original 2.8 to events more often due to being easier to throw in a bag.
Also, for less than the price of the new Z lens, I can pick up a good used copy of a 200 f2 that I’ve been eyeing up… now there’s a dilemma! 😅
But it tends to slide down.
Thank you for this Review! I'm looking to buy my first L Series lens. I do wildlife primarily with the RF 100-400 and looking to expand to other things and knowing I can use an extender makes me feel better until I can add another quality lens to my camera bag.
I probably would have bought the black “Z” model with internal zoom if it was available at the time, but don’t need it enough to take a loss selling the original lens. At least the original lens is more compact when the situation warrants it. My particular copy is very sharp already, so no complaints there.
Tnx! U r 1 of d reviewers I really trust
5:31 Could the difference in bloom be because of the age of the lens? Maybe it does have some dust inside that is causing the bloom?
Got mine today. If it is anything like the 24-105 f2.8Z it will be amazing.
I shoot mostly landscapes with my 70-200 and don't have a huge need for f/2.8. For that reason, I bought the RF 70-200 f/4, which is much smaller and lighter than either of the current RF f/2.8 options. (At the time I bought the f4, the Z wasn't out yet, n to that it would have changed my decision) If I did get into sports shooting, and IF I felt compelled to upgrade or buy a second 70-200, I would probably get the newer Z model, if for no other reason than the fact that it can be used with a teleconverter, thus greatly increasing its versatility.
Nice comparison, thanks! So the new lens is better in almost all aspects. Despite that, if I didn't already have the old one and was going to buy such lens, I would still buy the old version. Its form-factor is just so easy packable.
I have no doubt that this is a fair assessment. That being said, I'm loving the performance of my "older" version and its relative stowage ease in my pack.
I would love to see a "quick" detailed comparison like this to also include the EF 70-200 v2 or v3 on the same body
The older lens being more portable is the biggest thing for me. The optical quality the average person won't recognize, especially a client
I am not a pro but I do have the old 70-200 and I got AFTER I seen what the new lens had to offer. The OG was 2499 at the time and the new was 2999, so what do i get for the $500? A aperture ring on the lens. I dont need that I have a wheel on the camera. The option to use a teleconverter is nice but i got this lens for the 2.8 aperture. This lens we use for my sons basketball games, b-days, weddings and school events. The internal zoom is a pro and a con, the room you save in the bag you could drop a nifty 50 in the bag. All that being said, I would love to see some of the negative things you brought up about the old lens be addressed in a Mark II of it. Your point that it might not be a true 200mm is good info for sure
I have both the Canon RF 100-500 and the Canon RF 70-200 "z". I'm wondering whether to sell the first one and buy a 2x teleconverter. I also photograph sports, but not only that.
Get the TC and use it for a while, they aren't all that expensive and re-sell pretty well (and it will work on both lenses if you want). If you find you aren't really using the 100-500mm anymore then sell it.
Maybe it's just the video quality on youtube, but it did not look even close to my eyes, the TC on the 70-200mm was clearly not as sharp as the 100-500mm alone.
Depends on your use case, but if you are shooting above 200 a lot - much of the time you'll actually be at a lower f stop w the 100-500, and then you have another 100. Also as you can see from Tony's video - the 100-500 is sharper.
I love the zoom options my EF 100-400 II gives me. I can rotate the zoom ring, but I can also just pull the zoom. Doesn't that work with this lens?
Great review. Now we need a new best 70-200mm f2.8 between Sony, Canon and Nikon vid!
Older version’s smaller size wins for me. Whatever optical differences there may be are for pixel-peepers. In reality, nobody will be able to tell the difference between the two files, so it’ll come down to a choice between convenience and functionality (video). Internal zoom is nice, but not worth the price difference to me.
1:46 but it does come with a tripod collar…
Was about to say the same. Actually it was an advantage that you are able to completely remove it on the old lens instead of just the foot on the new one.
Oooh my mistake. I must have just taken it off and forgotten about it.
@@TonyAndChelsea I think people know this, they are just saying it to say it! there are at least 5 comments right now about the old one having a removable tripod collar.
@@TonyAndChelsea I thought perhaps you were confusing it with the F4.
I’m rocking my EF 70-200 iii. I really didn’t like the first RF version and its telescopic mechanism. I love the new Z version but $3k is steep for me. I find that I gravitate towards my RF 85 1.2 and my 28-70 2.0 more than I reach for my 70-200.
Last month I took my ef 100-400mm L Mark II lens out to photograph birds and I noticed a Big white speck in the middle of the lense. I said to myself, I'm not sending this lens back to Canon to have them remove that speck. So I decided to loosen the friction ring and tried zooming the lens in and out really fast to see if I could blow that speck off of the lens and Thank God it worked. That external zoom design works but the internal zoom is Far Better of a design.
Did you notice it on photos?
@kevindiaz3459 I was able to remove the speck from the lens by quickly zooming the lens in and out. The air being sucked in and out of the lens blew the speck off of the lense element so it wasn't an issue.
@@chesterdilley1274 I mean, I read that the first time. I'm guessing you never saw it on your images, which is fine either way, I was just curious. Most dust on the front elements isn't an issue anyway. It's when it gets on the rear or sensor that it is a problem, or just gets to be too much.
@kevindiaz3459 After that I didn't see that spec in the lens. I'm shooting wide open so if the speck was still there I don't think it would show up on the images.
What’s with the aperture ring? Are Canon going to re-introduce them? 😅
it actually works well for video, I don't like that it doesn't click (for photo purposes), but it allows you to set the control rings as something else. I think Canon reintroduced the focus ring because they are finding out that the RF mounts are way more capable than what they thought before and are going to find even more uses for the lenses and adding more features.
When you test the lenses in your studio do you test them with or without the lens hood on? I think most people including yourself would shoot either of these with the hood on outdoors and then any flaring and reduced contrast between them might be minimal.
The hood doesn't make any difference when you're shooting directly into a light source. The hood only helps when there's light shining in from outside the lens' field of view... the hood helps by casting shade on the surface of the lens because that stray light can also cause flaring.
Does anyone know if the tele-converters come in black? Also, what is the price of the new Z?
They don't seem to come in black
@@TonyAndChelsea Tony/Chelsea, if you ever get the opportunity to speak with a Canon rep, mention to him/her that your viewers are requesting the black option :)
black one reminds me of magic drainpipe :D
that's racist bro! I don't know how (and it's not), but it is! 😂🤣🤣
@@TigaWould lol :D
I really appreciate the extended chart sharpness tests. I know they don't always tell the whole story on a lens but they do give us a useful look into what we can expect. I wish you could compare the sharpness to the older EF 70-200 Mark III so I could know if it's worth upgrading or if I should just keep my adapter. Also, have you had a chance to test the new 16-28? Thanks!
Canon cameras have a different hot shoe. Please make a video of varying speed light flashes in R8 or R50 or R6 Mark 2. Or does Godox work fine as Canon Speed lights?
The godox will work with the R8 R6ii but not the R50
How does this new version compare to the Sony's GM 70-200/2.8 mk 2 ?
You could buy the original lens AND an excellent RF100-400 for about the same price!! I think I'd go that route!
I still use the EF 70-200mm F2.8 mkiii; used the mkii up until last year at some point when I was able to grab the mkiii in a refurb sale for 1100 USD. Still top performance lenses, the extending zoom RF model IMO is only as good as the EF versions optically and inferior in almost all other categories, save for being compact and the "advantage" of the superior stabilization (which it very case dependent). The Z version does look to be superior, but at the same time, the price pretty well prevents mere mortals from having anything to do with it, and the price clearly is a reflection of the "Z" aspect of it. So really, unless shooting serious level videography, or you just have to not use adapters anymore for whatever reason, the EF models are still a completely viable option even for working pros.
I don't think it would happen, but Canon has in the past had multiple versions of the 70-200mm on market at the same time. It's just that useful of a lens that they can effectively sell like, 4 versions of it at the same time. Would love to see this lens with the "Z" stuff removed and at a price point closer to 2200-2400. I don't think it's likely, but I can hope!
That is why I am KEEPING THE EF VERSION of 70-200, because it is more sharper, it is WHITE, and yes, a bit heavier but I can live with it! :-)
I shoot an EF 70-200 IS VII, I've decided the best lens for me is a 70-200 IS VII. Neither RF lens offers enough advantage for me to upgrade.
@TonyAndChelsea I find the subject of lesser focal length as stated interesting. Do I remember correctly that you already made a video about this some years ago?
The first time I saw Canon call their lens with Z, I thought there was a typo since Nikon calls their lens Z for the mount.
wonder if the dji mic was off or Tony forgot to use the audio. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if this was shot by an iPhone. Nothing wrong with it though, big fan.
The back cap being off of the lenses is giving me anxiety... 🤣🤣😂😂🤣🤣
2:44 is this what you get when you ask AI to make Tony look younger? 😂
I think this needs a comparison with the 100-300/2.8 that is sharper with a 1.4 & 2.0 TCs than the new 70-200 with TC.
I wish RUclipsrs would stop saying "who this lens is for." It's for ANYONE who can afford the lens.
Oh good grief they obviously mean which use cases is it most useful for. I find that kind of information useful. Y'all are just ridiculous sometimes with these dumb comments.
just because you can buy it, doesn't mean you should.
Even if you WANT to spend 3k on a single lens, there are probably 50+ options across all manufactueres. According to your logic, if you want to spend 3k, you have to spend 150k+.
Please try to not use the word "anyone" so damn blindly. Especially if you try to complain about multiple people while having such an unqualified statement.
…..don’t be deliberately ignorant. They are obviously mean what it is most useful for and its stats.
Indeed, but it's not for those who want to do macro, wildlife (especially birding), or some sporting events that require more reach with large aperture (similar need as wildlife). Not the best choice for nightsky and milkyway shots... So it doesn't hurt to let the people know what it's mainly used for. As many people won't even know the effect and capability of a lens just by looking at it. Many (using only smarthphones) will think the lens is so "big", therefore you should see "very far" and likely be able to photograph planets with it.
Who is this comment for?
Wait do other Canon lenses have aperture rings now? That could save me from fuji
I’m actually aiming for the 100-500 😂… but the Z version is definitely an eye catcher
My life is not dependent on the photo I take. It’s more a hobby for me so really tough choice…I probably will keep using the old version as I know I’ll be more intended to bring it out due to the smaller size….too often that my “clients” either look at photos from phone or from 4x6 print and they won’t see a difference what so ever….😂
do wish it came with a arca swiss foot
Audio is fuzzy today.
DJI audio mics! go buy one and try one! They're fun! 😂
I received a tripod collar on my original style 70-200.😮
I'll use a 70-200 about once per year, so naw, I'm keeping my trusty old EF USM IS Mk II
naw bro! you need a new RF lens! According to every RUclipsr camera review, the rumors websites and the comments sections of both of those... You are upset because Canon does NOT have native 3rd party lenses with auto focus! you can put up a good front in the comments section of this video, but we all know you're upset and considering switching to Sony because of how upset you are about having to adapt older EF lenses that are still great and suit your needs! think about it, you literally have to that the lens off of the adapter instead of the camera body! how upset are you about that entire process! 😂🤣
@@TigaWould Oh. Alright, uh, I'm incandescent with rage. Grr
There should be black teleconverter :D
The noticeable change in voice loudness between studio and in between commentary is a little bit annoying
I feel no desire to "upgrade" to the newer lens.
Got to Update my WIsh list be right back.
Canon, enough making 70-200 mm lenses. We got the first two... they were great... enough now. We need other lenses like the 15mm TS-R or a small 50mm f1.4 that costs around 500euro. (the rf 50mm1.8 sucks). And we also need a retro style camera like the fuji's. Come on!! Move, move, move.
ps: the older non Z is a lot better when you travel. And i do not know a photographer that doesn't travel. And it was great in the studio as well. So actually there was absolutely no need for a new 70-200. Stop loosing time overlapping lenses that we already have and are already perfect.
holy jumpscare at 3:57!! Tone down the audio!
am i the only one that is uncomfortable seeing lens being put down without the rear end lens cap?
The old lens does come with a tripod collar tho.......
white!! otherwise it looks like the 24-105!
Diminishing returns lol
New one looks like bigger Fuji 50-140mm.
The original 70-200 f2.8 does come with a tripod foot
USM is so mutch better ....
Why does Canon call their lenses Z? Sounds like some Nikon jealousy there. Sony had G lenses too, after Nikon did. Weird... 26 letters in the alphabet to choose from.
GAS
My ORIGINAL canon 70--200 f 2.8 Cane with a tripod collar..
The white color makes you look more "professional".... This is dumb, but perception of clients matters... Because no consumer lenses are white, they automatically look like something that must be better to the untrained eye. And untrained eyes are the ones that usually hire you!
One photographer admitted that he always uses a battery grip just because it makes a camera look more "professional" to the client.
When you zoom into 800%. That explains who this video/channel is for.
Well people watch on very small screens... A large portion of people watch vertical on their phone. For these people to see the difference that might be obvious in a print, I gotta zoom deep.
@@TonyAndChelsea Tony this is unacceptable! you need to tell your viewer that they can only watch your channel from a 102 inch TV in 16K with a 35 speak surround sound system that makes your voice sound like the voice of an angel and really highlights those DJI mics! 😂
Thing is, most modern lenses and cameras combined with today’s processing possibilities has made the traditional means of measuring “ better” less and less relevant. Both lenses in this example do the job of putting an image on a sensor exceptionally well and while the gear never did make the photo or the photographer, the benefits of one over the other is likely more related to cost, weight, size, versatility more so than sharpness. Possibly the relevant differences between these two is size, ability to use a converter and cost and here I’m thinking about the possible supply of used 70-200 non Z lenses available driven in part because we still think more sharpness will make our photos better.
@@darrelltheriault5793 you are correct for the most part, but it depends on what field you're in! I am a commercial and fashion photographer so The Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM Z is the better choice for me. Since I have to deal with fabric that is sometimes a headache, it does help to have that extra detail and sharpness. it's also the same thing when dealing with the models eyes, make up and other factors. Will most people notice it if they love my image? No not really, but I notice it, and the photoshoot that I did last month, that model and editor noticed the difference. Would the average person notice? probably NOT. takes a trained professional to notice what is different especially while pixel peeping (because we have to go over details during the editing process). So is the new Z model for everyone? NOPE! but neither was the 24-105 f/2.8, The 85mm f/1.2, or the 100-300 f/2.8. It really depends on your needs. if you already have the version 1 and you're not in any specific field that needs it, you are correct, no one will know the difference, but when you are, it's definitely needed. because all of those other factors, size, cost, weight and etc... don't mean anything to me. I just need the best of the best image (which was why I was considering Hasselblad for a long time, but I don't want to carry 2 systems).
@ Thanks for your input. Essentially only the best is good enough. When the 70-200Z mkii comes along, only that will do and price is irrelevant.
Canon is going to charge you a monthly fee. For 1080 P who knowd where they will stop. After they have already removed. Many needed features, all their compition for the win.
yes yes they are! and remember Canon Bad! Sony good! so use your Sony entry level camera and talk about how bad Canon is and how good Sony is! blah blah blah bad canon! naughty canon make bad decisions! make up more rumors blah blah blah on how bad canon is! no facts, just bad canon! bad canon! do better canon! give me everything I want and you'll still be bad! 😂
Day 1 of asking if can trade my Canon gear for someone's Sony gear
Please cover the OM-3!!