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),
Well, in that case I would go f/4.0
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.
Again, f/4.0
For those occasional portraits and events you can spend the rest on a used Sigma 85mm (or even 105mm) f/1.4 Art, those lenses are getting pretty affordable these days, and those are two stops brighter than the f/2.8 zoom, so for light gathering these are running circles around that f/2.8 zoom, and the same is true for creating bokeh at a workable distance.
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.
RF f/4.0 zoom to make shut up your brain, an f/1.4 prime to satisfy your heart.
Anyone else having this same sort of struggle either with these two lenses or other lenses?
The Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 @810 grams & 1239 euro is pretty appealing, but I think I rather stick with 85mm f/1.4 for my portraits. When I need reach for landscapes I rather use a 100-400mm.