Recommendations for a Canon RF/EF lens (preferably not the 70-200 f2.8)

[cedge]

I've had the Canon R8 for a number of months now and Id like to get better performance for capturing my small dog running towards me and a general walk about lens.

I've come to the conclusion that the 24-70 f4 EF lens doesn't play that nicely with the Canon R8. I get much better results with it on my old 5D and with my old 28-105 EF lens on the R8! I get good results with the EF 85mm f1.8 for action purposes but I find that the camera (or lens) starts to struggle when my dog is nearing the camera but not close enough to encroach on the mfd of the lens. Due to these issues, I'm starting to wonder whether an RF lens would be a better performer in these tasks (or other EF lenses) so is there anything better (and doesnt cost the earth or weigh too much) that I can use that works well with the Canon R8?

I had the EF 135mm f2 on my radar but not sure whether it would do much better than the 85mm f1.8?
How would the Canon RF 24-105 f4 perform for both these tasks?

Example of pictures I like taking:



Thanks for any help/recommendations.

 

[Willid1]

Looks like quite a small dog, the closer it gets to you the more any lens will struggle to focus track.

You don't give a budget, but I'd be buying a 100-500L RF, a bit big though if you are looking for a "walkabout" lens

Borrow one if you can https://testdrive.trythekit.com/

David

 

[TimHughes]

I have R and R5 and mostly EF lenses just RF 85 1.2 and RF 135 1.8 and shoot mostly in challenging conditions. I’ve not noticed any significant AF tracking improvement with the RF lenses vs EF.

EF 135 f2 is a great lens so maybe worth a try. But it could be the AF tracking task is too much for R8 regardless of lens?

 

[LongLensPhotography]

We have already explained that you want to do this sort of work at around 200mm end or even longer. We also discussed the options available.

 

[cedge]

Did we, I've slept since then I think . My concern is like Tim says, my aim might be too much for the R8. I'm also looking for an alternative lens to the EF 24-70 that might work better on the R8.

My dog tends to be relatively close when she starts running towards me hence why I don't think I need 200mm for that purpose.

 

[TimHughes]

Did we, I've slept since then I think . My concern is like Tim says, my aim might be too much for the R8. I'm also looking for an alternative lens to the EF 24-70 that might work better on the R8.

My dog tends to be relatively close when she starts running towards me hence why I don't think I need 200mm for that purpose.

if AF tracking is too much then try fixing focus and try your luck that way.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Did we, I've slept since then I think . My concern is like Tim says, my aim might be too much for the R8. I'm also looking for an alternative lens to the EF 24-70 that might work better on the R8.

My dog tends to be relatively close when she starts running towards me hence why I don't think I need 200mm for that purpose.

that image right there could have been shot on 135 or 200mm and that would have massively improved the framing. With small dog you are really looking at a very close working distance with these... besides you just throw the ball or stick further if you have to....

I don't know if canon has specifically crippled R8 over R6 II which uses same sensor, or even mk1. I seriously doubt it. You get smaller battery, smaller body, poorer EVF which is a waste of time anyway, and no IBIS. That's about it. I have no problem tracking running dogs with R6 specifically in full electronic mode, and EF lenses whether Canon or Sigma ART.

for anything wider you just bag 70mm ART macro, 50mm f/1.4 ART, 40mm f/1.4 ART, Tamron 35mm f/1.4, 28mm f/1.4 ART or any combination thereof. It will not be great for action because your framing will be off most of the time.

 

[andrewc]

Try the ef 70-200 if you don’t want to pay the RF tax. The L versions f4. F4 IS and f2.8 IS are all very good.

I shoot runners, occasionally canicross with dogs running too.. I sometimes use my R7 for this job.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Try the ef 70-200 if you don’t want to pay the RF tax. The L versions f4. F4 IS and f2.8 IS are all very good.

I shoot runners, occasionally canicross with dogs running too.. I sometimes use my R7 for this job.

F/4 IS mk1 at that. You will be stuck in electronic mode for proper frame rate but that's better anyway. Also will need decent light, which you also want anyway. 3-400 used. Not that bad. Sadly I've just destroyed mine.

 

[andrewc]

F/4 IS mk1 at that. You will be stuck in electronic mode for proper frame rate but that's better anyway. Also will need decent light, which you also want anyway. 3-400 used. Not that bad. Sadly I've just destroyed mine.

how did you manage that?

 

[LongLensPhotography]

how did you manage that?

just bloody fell of the camera / adapter

 

[cedge]

Absolutely, if I was doing photography for money I would be definately getting the RF 70-200 f2.8 and looking at the 24-70 f2.8 as well but I'm not; this is just a hobby and as I like walking/hiking, I don't particulary want to over burden myself with heavy big lenses nor spend a small fortune on them either if I can help it .

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Absolutely, if I was doing photography for money I would be definately getting the RF 70-200 f2.8 and looking at the 24-70 f2.8 as well but I'm not; this is just a hobby and as I like walking/hiking, I don't particulary want to over burden myself with heavy big lenses nor spend a small fortune on them either if I can help it .

Well you have a list of nice and very affordable (used) lenses above.

Other than that you have really bought into a wrong brand if you want good value. You may find tamron E or Z mount mk II zooms both wallet- and backpack- friendlier by a big margin

 

[cedge]

Thanks for all the advice.

 

[Phil V]

the 70-200 2.8 is the obvious choice for the task.

Obviously if you'd prefer something smaller / cheaper / lighter then the EF70-200 f4 is the obvious choice, but if you could afford it, the RF version is lighter still but obviously much more expensive.
A decent IS example is less than £400 and they weigh in at only 750g

 

[cedge]

Thanks, food for deep thought

 

[Brentor]

I have the EF70-200 f4 non IS lens which works well for action shots of my dog using a R7.

 

[cedge]

Hi all, just as an update to the original post. Since posting, I sold the Canon R8 back at the start of the year as I was frustrated with the closed RF mount for FF lenses and my 'dog running' results were inconsistent (partly due to user error - SS not fast enough I suspect). I have since tried a Lumix S1, a Fuji X-T4 and then an OM-1 where I thought I would stay for a while but couldn't believe for my use case how bad it was in terms of hit rate accuacy plus my joystick broke and it was deemed uneconomical to repair so was refunded.

So, after revisting the images I took with my previous cameras, I ended up re-buying an R8 in May. I also picked up the 135mm F2L EF lens which is a better performer (see picture below) than my version of the EF 85mm f1.8 which I have since sold. I still had a gap for a more 'action' oriented lens, so tried the EF 70-200 F4 IS II but had to return it due to a communication issue with the R8. Today, I will hopefully receive after trying to avoid picking one up, an EF 70-200 f2.8 IS II.....My reasoning to myself is that yes it's heavy but for most of my photography, it is likely to be the only lens I will need to take. As I am often shooting in low light situations where even the 135mm struggles, I decided not to get a second F4 lens but to go straight to the f2.8 version. If its good, I will certainly look to add a 1.4x teleconverter to the mix to give me a little more reach for events.



With the 135mm, I still think my hit rate especially in low contrast scenes is inconsistent but hoping that the 70-200 f2.8 will provide a little more consistency (faster/more accurate AF) in my shots. I almost bought an OM-3 this week but I'm holding off as when you nail the focus on FF, IMO the results are stellar and I find with high noise shots, that they more easily clean up with denoise software then m43 in my experience and you are still left with a natural looking crisp shot. In my experience, you can definately push FF files harder in Lightroom especially in terms of sharpness/clarity, where as my m43 images don't seem to have the same degree of malleability.

 

[Brentor]

My reasoning to myself is that yes it's heavy but for most of my photography, it is likely to be the only lens I will need to take. As I am often shooting in low light situations where even the 135mm struggles, I decided not to get a second F4 lens but to go straight to the f2.8 version.

I hope this works for you but AF issues in low light/low contrast is partly due to the limitations of the camera. I find this with my R7.

 

[cedge]

I hope this works for you but AF issues in low light/low contrast is partly due to the limitations of the camera. I find this with my R7.

At least I will find out for myself this way (and can return the lens within 14 days if not satisfied). Are there any cameras that perform better in these situations? I don't remember my Olympus E-M1.2 struggling as much so was surprised that the OM-1 didn't seem to do any better/was worse for consistency in these scenarios.

 

[Brentor]

At least I will find out for myself this way (and can return the lens within 14 days if not satisfied). Are there any cameras that perform better in these situations? I don't remember my Olympus E-M1.2 struggling as much so was surprised that the OM-1 didn't seem to do any better/was worse for consistency in these scenarios.

In the Canon range the more expensive models are deemed to have better AF. All of them are very good, some better than others. It may be worth doing some research on settings but as you say you will be able to find out for yourself very soon. I do not have any R lenses but those that do often refer to better AF.

 

[Phil V]

Rethinking this and the poor battery in the R8 could be a contributing factor here.

Test drive both the rf 70-200’s, the EF135 f2 is a beautiful lens, but for tracking a dog moving towards you, you’ll definitely benefit from the zoom for framing. I tend to start zooming out as the dog starts to get close to filling the frame and hope for the best

And if those 2 lenses can’t give you what you want, buy a s/h r6

 

[cedge]

Rethinking this and the poor battery in the R8 could be a contributing factor here.

Test drive both the rf 70-200’s, the EF135 f2 is a beautiful lens, but for tracking a dog moving towards you, you’ll definitely benefit from the zoom for framing. I tend to start zooming out as the dog starts to get close to filling the frame and hope for the best

I have 3 batteries for the R8 , I'm not a pro so that's enough for me. Most of the time, 2 batteries are more than sufficient. The RF lenses are more than I want to spend and I wanted the option for a teleconverter to extend the reach of the 70-200 hence why I've opted for the EF 70-200 f2.8 IS II. I will post my findings for my use case in due course.

 

[Phil V]

I have 3 batteries for the R8 , I'm not a pro so that's enough for me. Most of the time, 2 batteries are more than sufficient. The RF lenses are more than I want to spend and I wanted the option for a teleconverter to extend the reach of the 70-200 hence why I've opted for the EF 70-200 f2.8 IS II. I will post my findings for my use case in due course.

I meant the battery performance, IIRC the R8 uses the tiny little battery from the m5 and xxxd series, where the R6 uses an upgraded version of the prosumer battery. (5,6,7d)

I was once wrong in a discussion where I asserted that a later canon M50II should focus better than my M5, but apparently whilst having a later AF system (from the 90d? v the 80d) the camera was crocked by having a lower powered battery than the M5.

 

[cedge]

Well, EF 70-200 f2.8 IS II arrived, batteries fully charged and tested it over weekend at a classic car event and my usual running dog tests and I don't know whether I have a dud, but the performance is extrememly dissapointing compared to the 135mm F2 which has a more consistent hit rate for dogs running towards me and not only that, is much much sharper. I would say at this point, the 70-210 even pips it and I have always been a little dissapointed with that version of the lens. I tried a mix of lens stabilisation on and off but the results are just extremely poor. It seems like its going to go back and at this point I think I'm just going to look at adding the 200mm F2.8 and just stick to primes.

 

[LCPete]

that 70-200 should be sharp, have you tried focus testing on a static subject and comparing with another lens
I don’t have the F2.8 mine is F4 but it works well for moving subjects

 

[TimHughes]

Well, EF 70-200 f2.8 IS II arrived, batteries fully charged and tested it over weekend at a classic car event and my usual running dog tests and I don't know whether I have a dud, but the performance is extrememly dissapointing compared to the 135mm F2 which has a more consistent hit rate for dogs running towards me and not only that, is much much sharper. I would say at this point, the 70-210 even pips it and I have always been a little dissapointed with that version of the lens. I tried a mix of lens stabilisation on and off but the results are just extremely poor. It seems like its going to go back and at this point I think I'm just going to look at adding the 200mm F2.8 and just stick to primes.

looks like you have a dud. dxo sharpness scores for both on 5DSR are 33 for the zoom and 30 for the prime. I have both and that fits with my experience.

 

[Phil V]

looks like you have a dud. dxo sharpness scores for both on 5DSR are 33 for the zoom and 30 for the prime. I have both and that fits with my experience.

This.
It’s a long time since I had the 200mm prime, but it’s an old design and I didn’t consider my upgrade to the zoom as a downgrade in IQ.

And having used my 70-200 on the R6 for a few years I can attest it works perfectly.

Again though, they’re quite heavy bits of glass to be moving around, and I wouldn’t be surprised to find that the R8 would focus less well than an R6 with that lens.

But it’s worth a test on a static subject, to isolate the issue.

 

[cuthbert]

Obviously the RF 24-70 2.8 is an expensive lens, but I found the tracking and AF to be fantastic. I’ve got a near identical pic of my dog and I just used the full area servo AF with animal tracking and it was pretty impressive.

Golden hour walk by Sparkling Pictures, on Flickr

 

[andrewc]

I use a EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS L Mark II with both 1DX MK II and my R7 and found it to be excellent. I use it mostly for athletics - usually mass particpation running events - 5k to half marathons and usually use it for head on shots. Also sometimes use it for motorsport.

 

[Phil V]

Well, EF 70-200 f2.8 IS II arrived, batteries fully charged and tested it over weekend at a classic car event and my usual running dog tests and I don't know whether I have a dud, but the performance is extrememly dissapointing compared to the 135mm F2 which has a more consistent hit rate for dogs running towards me and not only that, is much much sharper. I would say at this point, the 70-210 even pips it and I have always been a little dissapointed with that version of the lens. I tried a mix of lens stabilisation on and off but the results are just extremely poor. It seems like it’s going to go back and at this point I think I'm just going to look at adding the 200mm F2.8 and just stick to primes.

I’ll have to try to upload again later. The file is too large

 

[cedge]

that 70-200 should be sharp, have you tried focus testing on a static subject and comparing with another lens
I don’t have the F2.8 mine is F4 but it works well for moving subjects

I tried the EF 70-200 IS II F4 before (also returned due to a commuication fault) and couldn't complain about the sharpness on that one. It was amazing. That's why I was surprised with the f2.8. I'll do some static tests compared to the 135 and 70-210 f3.5-4.5 and post up the results.

Update - Static shots (shot at 135mm on tripod, ISO 100, 2s self timer, stabilisation off, ISOs of F2.8, 4 and 5.6) reveal that my copy of the 70-200 IS II is consistently soft at f2.8, a little better at f4 but still soft and not starting to really sharpen until f5.6 but still can be soft even at f5.6 (see Yashica images below). Compared to the 135mm F2, that lens is sharper at f2.8 than the 70-200 is at f4 and is about on par when the 70-200 gets to f5.6. It is at least sharper than my terrible 70-210 f3.5-4.5 but that is not saying much.

 

[cedge]

Obviously the RF 24-70 2.8 is an expensive lens, but I found the tracking and AF to be fantastic. I’ve got a near identical pic of my dog and I just used the full area servo AF with animal tracking and it was pretty impressive.

Golden hour walk by Sparkling Pictures, on Flickr

Did it nail the eye or is the focus slightly behind the eye, on the fur around the collar? I get brilliant results with the 135mm F2 but that combo stuggles as my dog gets closer to me, usually the last 6-10 shots of a sequence are out of focus.