My take on the RF 70-200 F4

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
OP davel33 Senior Member • Posts: 2,175
Re: Although ...

jwilliams wrote:

davel33 wrote:

This lens is awesome, its a pleasure to use. There are two small details I don't care for.
#1 you cant use it with an extender, none made at this time, same for the 2.8 version.
#2 the hood is a monster, does not have a small door to adjust your CPL.

Details I DO care for
#1 Its SMALL, 1/2" longer than the RF 24-105 f4L, same width and a few grams lighter.
#2 Most of the weight of the lens is near the mount, its easy on your wrist
#3 The focus is very fast, silent and dead on.
#4 It has the same size filter 77mm filter and lens cap as the RF 24-105, same hood mount as the RF 24-105 and I would think the same as RF 70-200 f2.8.
#5 My finger is long enough to reach a rotating filter and I DONT have long fingers
#6 The lens does not rattle when not on the camera, it does not rattle when used. My EF 85 L f1.4 was a rattle trap on and off the camera
#7 Its very sharp.

#8 did I say its SILENT

I plan on using it with the Rf 24-105 f4 for event shooting. I replaced the EF 70-200 f4 IS with this and am SO GLAD I did. In a room with people, when I did the half press to focus half the room would stop and turn to me, sorta blows your chance for a candid. This lens on my R/R6 is silent

I would not hesitate to use this on a tripod with out a collar for the lens.

Like I said in the first line this lens is a pleasure to use

Although I've owned both the original EF 70-200 4L and own the EF 70-200 4L IS V1, this one doesn't tempt me as much.

It does solve one thing I disliked about the EF versions and that is it isn't internal focus. That made those lenses unnecessarily long and difficult to pack into a bag. The rather large lens hood didn't help with packing them either.

On the downsides, the RF lens has no tele converter capability, no option for a tripod collar and it seems the lens hood is still overly large.

The main reason I'm not as interested is I just don't think I really need to own a 70-200 lens anymore. I own the RF 24-105 4L IS and am fine with it's IQ at 70-105, so the 70-105 range is unnecessary overlap for me. So that leaves the 106-200 range and to buy a rather expensive lens for that just isn't making a lot of sense. I'd rather have a 100-300/400 lens where the lens really provides me some longer FL ranges. If this lens could use TC's I'd probably feel different.

Of course everyone has different needs. 70-200 zooms are perfect for some types of work, but as an amateur I just don't do anything that demands that range fit into one lens. Add in a rather steep price for a f4 lens and I'm probably going to pass.

I'm sure it is great at what it does and I'm sure IQ is top notch. It just doesn't seem like a lens I feel a need to own anymore.

Plus, I still have my 70200 4L IS and 1.4x converter. Seems used prices are very poor so I'll probably hang onto it just in case.

I think the difference between us is I like over lapping range.  I found when I was shooting events it saved me a few lens changes.  It seemed like every time I needed to change a lens the perfect shoot presents itself and I dont have a lens on my camera.

Yea I noticed that about used prices, so my ef 70-200 f4 IS  was part of my trade in.

-- hide signature --

"Just one more Lens, I promise....."

 davel33's gear list:davel33's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EOS R6 Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro +27 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow