Canon RF70-200 quandary

Phil V

Phil V

Suspended / Banned
Messages
26,303
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
I’ve no idea whether this question will gather a useful response, but here goes.

Since getting the RF24-70, I find myself leaning on it a lot more than I thought I would. And oddly this has led to me also reaching for my trusty (too big and too heavy) EF70-200 2.8 too.

To be honest, the lens still produces great results, but with the adaptor it weighs 1080g and is 235mm long.

The Z is out of the question, and I thought I’d settled on the RF f4, which weighs less than half what mine weighs 695g. However, what’s stopped me hitting ‘add to cart’ is the sneaky suspicion that I’d miss the 2.8 wide open. Both are ‘affordable’ though I could easily spend the money on other more practical things (or holidays)

Either would fit in my ridiculously cavernous yet tiny bag, I’ve had both on test drive, I’ve read the reviews, but I’m really struggling to commit.

Anyone have words of wisdom.
 
I bought the Z for the quicker throw, internal zoom and ability to use a TC (actually at events in hardly use it without).

If those are not of consequence for you I think the 2.8 mk1 is equily as good and the above are the only things that sold me the Z over it.

Not helping you make a call and you probably know all the above but it may aid in decision making.

Having said that I used the 70-200 EF f4 for 20 years and I do notice the 2.8 DoF vs the F4 for sure.
 
I have the RF70-200 2.8 on my work cam and it’s an awesome lens. Very sharp etc etc don’t mind the retracting barrel and it’s less cumbersome than the EF version. All I will say is that for my style, even though I can use it personally, I very rarely reach for it.

I suppose to put it simply, If you need a 70-200 lens you can’t go wrong with it, but you might find something else, like a mid focal range prime suits you better - like an 85. I could live without it, but couldn’t live without the 15-35 and 24-70.
 
Yeah I never had the TC, I would prefer the internal zoom in an ideal world, but the size is one of the drivers to the purchase.
 
  • Like
Reactions: A_S
cuthbert said:
I have the RF70-200 2.8 on my work cam and it’s an awesome lens. Very sharp etc etc don’t mind the retracting barrel and it’s less cumbersome than the EF version. All I will say is that for my style, even though I can use it personally, I very rarely reach for it.

I suppose to put it simply, If you need a 70-200 lens you can’t go wrong with it, but you might find something else, like a mid focal range prime suits you better - like an 85. I could live without it, but couldn’t live without the 15-35 and 24-70.
Click to expand...
I’ve got the 24-70 and the 85.
I also still have the EF 135L which is my favourite lens but one I don’t get to use that often.
What’s pushing this purchase is the fact I’ve taken to using the old ef one and it weighs a ton and I’m not getting younger.
 
I think in that case it’s probably a great choice- happy to take some pics and send you a few raws if it’s helpful. Like I say, it’s amazingly sharp, bokeh is good, I can’t fault it - it’s just one of those lenses that flattens and I guess as I’ve got older I’ve gone wider for depth, I do wish I had it on me from time to time but it is pretty chunky size wise though not much different in weight than the rf24-70
 
Unfortunately there is no right answer, only you can decide, which is not much help. As you have retired from wedding photography perhaps there is less need for 2.8 for what you now take? However, it sounds like if you buy the f4 you will often have that nagging feeling that I should have got the 2.8.
 
Brentor said:
Unfortunately there is no right answer, only you can decide, which is not much help. As you have retired from wedding photography perhaps there is less need for 2.8 for what you now take? However, it sounds like if you buy the f4 you will often have that nagging feeling that I should have got the 2.8.
Click to expand...
That’s the fear.

Unfortunately I do shoot some sports a couple of times a year (including indoor)
And family days out result in this…
 

Attachments

  • 0a292dbd-d13e-4819-9c18-63843c29332b.jpeg
    0a292dbd-d13e-4819-9c18-63843c29332b.jpeg
    93.2 KB · Views: 20
I assume the 'Z' is the updated version of the RF 70-200 f2.8? Confuses the hell out of this Nikon owner.

My OH is a Canon RF user and has the non-'Z' and the one disadvantage it has is that I don't think it accepts teleconverters - it didn't at the time she bought it; maybe that is something Canon rectified since
 
I upgraded mine to the 70-200mm 2.8Z, which I have paired with the 24-105mm 2.8Z. The internal throw is insane, with a gentle flick of the thumb I can go from 24-105 or 70-200 easily.
Obviously the downside is the lens is bigger in your bag but I can live with that, I never liked the external zoom of the original 70-200 RF, it took a lot of effort to zoom in and out.

You can't go wrong with the first version though, light, compact and amazing quality.
 
Last edited:
I have a Canon 70-200mm f 2.8L and often use with a 1.4X converter. This combination works well as it is still equivalent to f4 but with 280mm focal length. Focussing is still fast but if you use the 1.4X converter on the f4 lens it will have difficulties focussing.

Dave
 
Thanks all

Practicality won out. I had decided to buy a lens for the size / weight saving, and spending a grand (ish) was vfm.

But the nagging doubt that I’d miss 2.8, and the fact that it was still lighter and smaller was a draw. But the reality is that it’s a lot more money, and where I really need the bokeh, I’d always reach for the 135 f2 which is dreamy.

Just hit buy now for the f4
 
Phil V said:
Thanks all

Practicality won out. I had decided to buy a lens for the size / weight saving, and spending a grand (ish) was vfm.

But the nagging doubt that I’d miss 2.8, and the fact that it was still lighter and smaller was a draw. But the reality is that it’s a lot more money, and where I really need the bokeh, I’d always reach for the 135 f2 which is dreamy.

Just hit buy now for the f4
Click to expand...

Guess its a case of what you use it for. For me, I wouldnt really have the time to switch to a specific lens just for that so it works for me - but it sounds like, for you at least, it makes perfect sense to do it that way (Y)
 
A_S said:
Guess its a case of what you use it for. For me, I wouldnt really have the time to switch to a specific lens just for that so it works for me - but it sounds like, for you at least, it makes perfect sense to do it that way (Y)
Click to expand...
It’s not a case of switching for a particular shot.

If I’m going with the family for a day out, the zoom lens is practical. But if I’m taking a couple of grandkids out for a walk where my aim is to get some photos, then I’d pack the 135.
 
A_S said:
Looks like a good buy that 135??
Click to expand...
The EF 135 f2 is great. But it’s one of the two lenses where I was tempted by the new RF version as that is 1.8.
 
A_S said:
Looks like a good buy that 135??
Click to expand...
It’s lovely, I think the only EF lens that betters it for pop is the 200 1.8 (or f2), and they’re properly expensive
 
  • Like
Reactions: A_S
Phil V said:
It’s lovely, I think the only EF lens that betters it for pop is the 200 1.8 (or f2), and they’re properly expensive
Click to expand...
Also bigger and heavier. I rented the 200 1.8 eye of Sauron once and that is even heavier than the 200 f2.
 
Phil

reading part of your initial post it looks as if you may be starting to have the same problems as i had. ie weight. This is the main reason why it sold all my Nikon cameras and lenses and went for the MFT Pana\sonic range instead.

To start with the lenses are far shorter and lighter . But that is only part of why I changed over . Image stablisation was another problem I had at my age. No I am not lying when I got my panasonic G9ii camera I had a real pleasant surprise . I would go as far as to say throw away tripods they are a thing of the past in most respects. Having the camera image stablistation and together with the inbuilt lens stablisation is amazing. The two together well is nothing but mind boggling.
Now with Phase detection and the huge menu I cannot think of anything one else would need. An added bonus is one can also store direct onto an SSD drive on a USB port on the camera, or via 2 xSD card slots

for me to say this being a nikon fan for more years than I can remember getting the Panasonic G9ii was like comming out of the dark ages.

OH I have no vested interest in panasonic financially or any other way apart from being a customer

P1070315.jpg
photo by Pana DC-TZ95 camera


constant f2.8 and internal barrel so lens stays same length. weight 1lb 4oz equivalent to your 70- 200 mm canon lens
 
Last edited:
Arrived today from Cotswold, first time using them, they emails s couple of days ago to say they had completed the. Order and would send tracking info in a couple of days.
No tracking info but I do have a lens. :banana:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top