DPReview.com is closing April 10th - Find out more

RF 70-200 f/2.8 vs 4.0 decisions decisions!

Started 1 month ago | Discussions thread
drsnoopy Senior Member • Posts: 1,216
Re: RF 70-200 f/2.8 vs 4.0 decisions decisions!

Basil Fawlty wrote:

I must have watched a dozen videos comparing these two lenses and I'm still struggling on which one to get to replace my EF 70-200 f/4 (non-IS).

From the comparisons I've seen, unless you're REALLY pixel peeping, the IQ on these two lenses is very comparable. Maybe a very slight edge to the 2.8 stopped to f4 compared to the f4 at f/4, mainly on the wide end (70mm). Most viewers are never going to notice a difference.

Points in favor of the f2.8: Obviously it's a full stop brighter than the f/4, which means better subject/background separation and bokeh. However, the f/4 isn't bad and the differences become less noticeable the more you zoom in.

The f2.8 would do better in indoor situations with poor lighting (such as our annual rodeo). However, the R5's ISO performance and today's noise reduction software like Topaz might make this a wash.

Points in favor of the f/4.0 version: The biggest difference of course is price. For the price of the f/2.8 I could buy the f/4.0 AND the 100mm f/2.8 macro lens.

The f/4.0 version would be much better for hiking and walking around town since it is lighter by almost a full pound.

Since I would be using this lens 80% of the time for landscapes, and only occasionally on portraits of family and friends (none professionally), or doing indoor events, I probably wouldn't need that extra stop very often. I'm thinking paying an extra $1000 for something that would be heavier to hike with and which I wouldn't really need very often, probably wouldn't be the best choice for me.

I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't love to have that 2.8 beast just because I know what a great lens it would be, but in the long run, given my shooting requirements, I'm thinking it makes more sense (for me) at this time to consider that smaller, lighter f/4.0 version and put the difference into something like that 100mm Macro lens. My heart says go for broke and get the 2.8, but my head says go for the f/4.

Anyone else having this same sort of struggle either with these two lenses or other lenses?

All I can say is that the RF 70-200 f4 version is an awesome lens on my R5. Coming from the EF 70-200/4 IS L it was the obvious choice, and I would not have even considered the 2.8 as I have no need for the wider aperture, nor would I appreciate the additional weight. The f4 is almost exactly the same dimensions as the RF 24-105/4 L and so the two work well together, plus with the 14-35/4 L I have an ideal FF travel setup. So no, I didn’t struggle with the choice.

Personally I already had the EF100/2.8 L macro so don’t need the RF version, plus I don’t need or want the SA control, which seems completely pointless to me. I would spend the difference on a trip to take photographs, not another lens…

 drsnoopy's gear list:drsnoopy's gear list
Canon EOS RP Canon EOS R5 Canon EOS R10 Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro +10 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow