For about the same price..RF 70-200mm F/4 or EF 70-200mm 2.8 IS iii ?

Started 8 months ago | Questions thread
Sittatunga Veteran Member • Posts: 4,352
Re: For Example
1

tkbslc wrote:

Sittatunga wrote:

Sorry, I didn't have the attention span to watch a six minute video. Can you summarise what he said?

He didn't like that the zoom throw was longer and firmer on the RF version which made it harder to track and follow athletes, and he couldn't tell any difference in pictures, so he decided to save some money.

I also couldn't tell much difference in pictures going from EF f4 to RF f4. But the lens is literally half the size vs the EF on adapter, so I bring it along twice as often. A lens that I used twice as often is worth more money to me. (Or so I tell myself to justify the lens costing so much more than EF.)

Truth be told, the EF versions are awesome. Especially the most recent versions. There is no way that you couldn't be satisfied with the performance. So it really comes down to if you want to pay extra for a much shorter lens that doesn't need an adapter.

Thanks, that was useful.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
KEG
KEG
KEG
KEG
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow