A very mixed experience with the RF 70-200 f2.8

ZX11 wrote:

PGSanta wrote:

ZX11 wrote:

lawny13 wrote:

BobNL wrote:

PGSanta wrote:

These types of posts just make me chuckle.

Well at least it provoked something

1. If you're a someone covering fast paced sports, the throw might be an issue.

yes

2. The lens IS NOT slower to AF than the EF on the R... if you're experiencing this, it's because of YOU, or your lens is defective.

good to know it might just be me... But yes, the AF in itself is not slower. Under the circumstances, it's execution was though. Might have been the lens, the newer firmware, an off-day from me, or... yes I'm trying to figure out what the reason was it didn't work as expected/hoped for.

3. If you're going to make a claim that the lens lacks a certain "je ne said quoi", then proceed to not give examples, you come off as inane. Post examples.

Well, that won't help much with a 'je ne sais quoi'. It's just a subjective observation from my side. Not something that can be pointed out in just 'a' picture. I took about 4000 photos that evening. It's an overall feeling going through them. Can't point out a flaw it just, for me, lacks something.

I gotta agree with the rest. You should post examples. in fact if you have both lenses yous should be able to provide examples of the same scene and see if others "fee." the same as you about it.

Here is the thing I gather reading your post.

You were excited about the lens. You got it and played around with it around the house. It raised your excitement and you were looking even more forward to using it. Up until this point there is no mention of a missing 'je ne sais quoi'
Then... you shot it at the event. The throw threw you off. The AF didn't work as you thought it should. You even mentioned that you might have been off your game. Maybe you were, or maybe the lens experience through you off your game.
Basically what I am saying is that if it was an off night, could the experience not have influenced your perception of the images as well? Perhaps you didn't capture the moment/emotions as you usually would have. All this plays a role in my opinion.
But I do get what you are saying. Corrections of the lens might remove certain aberrations and artifacts that sometimes contribute to other things positively. Micro contrast was all the rage once upon a time, as well as contrast images. When sony started coming out with these high DR sensor many people complained that out of camera images looked flat. But that was a product of higher DR. Personally I prefer the higher DR, which I can scale back and add myself.
If this lens requires an extra 10% adjustment to clarity/contrast to give us the same look/feel as the EF III, then I don't see it as an issue. Even after that if there is still more of a soulless feeling about it then I would agree. But without comparison images... it can all be imagined, or way more subtle to others than it is for you.

Makes sense that some error in the EF lens is adding beauty in the eyes of the owner that the new lens may have corrected for. Making the photo look like what my eye sees (perfect) may not be ideal.

Not that you are doing it,...but, why do people who don't love the RF 70-200 get the third degree? Would a comment on the EF 85mm f/1.8 not having character and seeming flat result in a similar demand for photos or supporting evidence? Is it because of the money readers have invested in the new RF 70-200 makes them more protective?

And stating that no evidence will be given, as if there are no reasons to not share photos (paid job?) on DPReview, then demands for evidence are doubled down?

Warning to those who don't love the RF lens, you will suffer consequences.

I don’t even own the lens yet. I decided to wait until it drops in price a little (I expect a 2-300 rebate by summer), and to give the production run enough time to even out in case the minimum focus issue was production related.

It’s a new lens, opinions on it are still being formulated, so it’s frustrating to see posts of little value and obviously wrong information get put out there.

OP has a gripe about the lens, then pushes further with a gripe that’s very clearly false... of course it’s going to get called out, and it should. It has nothing to do with an investment, it has to do with logic.

if OP was serious about a discussion, all he had to do was post side by side pics of his front yard, and we could have a meaningful conversation on subjective qualities of the lens, but he’s not interested in that... he’s interested in complaining... which hey he’s free to do, and we’re free to point it out.

I think his statement is opinion. He even says it is a subjective observation. It seems unprovable and not a lab spec provable fact. As unprovable as a feeling about the lens. Also, a thing that you can not say is clearly false.

You can only say that you have the opposite subjective observation or that others have the opposite observation. Not that it is clearly false.

I figure the lenses of this price level are all very capable and tend to be selected, or rejected, based on factors other than IQ. Factors such as IS, IS modes, focus range, construction, price, design of focus/zoom ring, camera bodies that can use it, etc.

I’m referring to his claim on the AF as blatantly false.  Of course his subjective opinion about the lens quality can be argued, I even suggest I might agree, but his subjective opinion is made to look less worthwhile when he makes a false claim about AF that’s so... well, clearly false.