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

RF 70-200 f/2.8 vs f/4 Flipin' and flopin'

Started 3 weeks ago | Discussions thread
ZX11
ZX11 Veteran Member • Posts: 6,156
Re: RF 70-200 f/2.8 vs f/4 Flipin' and flopin'

Basil Fawlty wrote:

I have a sale pending on my 5D Mark IV and I am pretty well set on the idea of getting another RF lens (or two) for my R5 with the proceeds.

I currently have an EF 70-200 f/4 non-IS and it’s been an “ok” lens, and since the R5 has IBIS, the fact that the lens doesn’t have lens IS isn’t the end of the world. Nevertheless, I feel I want to sell that lens as well and get an RF version of this focal range.

My struggle, as I’m sure many have had, is whether to get the lighter, much less expensive f/4.0 version, or spending $1200-$1300 more for the f/2.8 version. The fact the sensor on my R5 is so good is making me really struggle with whether upgrading to the f/2.8 is worth that much more money (to me).

Most of my shooting (80% at least) would be landscapes where I would mostly be stopping down anyway. I know in cases where I’m shooting portraits, the f/2.8 would yield nicer, creamier bokeh, but is it $1300 worth of better bokeh given I’m not a pro?

For shooting indoors, there have been occasions where I shot an indoor event and my current EF 70-200 f/4 didn’t cut it, but with the R5 being much better at higher ISO, maybe that shortfall would be mitigated with the ability to get good results at higher ISO compared to my 5D4? In another venue (an indoor rodeo) I got great results with my EF 135mm f/2, shooting wide open, but of course that lens doesn’t have the flexibility of the 70-200 focal range.

My heart says, “just suck it up and get the 2.8,” but my “head” says, “you don’t need the 2.8 and with the high-ISO capabilities of the R5 you could probably get fine results with the f/4 version.” The f/4 version is also smaller, lighter (for hiking) and of course much less $$.

For the amount of money I’d spend on the 2.8 version, I could buy the f/4 version plus something like the 85 f/2 and the 35mm f/1.8. Heck, if I got all these from the Canon refurbished store I could throw in the 16mm f/2.8 just for good measure. If I get the 70-200 f2.8 then that’s all I’m getting (for a good while).

I’m flipping and flopping on this decision like the ball in an Olympic ping pong match! Has anyone else struggled with this question? If so, what did you decide and why? I know it’s ultimately my decision, but I always like to hear other peoples opinions and use cases.

Worth renting the RF 70-200 f2.8 to see if you'd use f2.8 all that much?

I like the results of the f2.8.  There is a reason the f2.8 sells well even at $2800.  It's results are more than "fine", meh.  But if you would never take it due to size or weight and would always be at f4 or higher, then the smaller lens better matches your needs.

How much does the extra cost, extra size, and extra weight of the RF 70-200 f2.8 bother you versus your love/like/don't care of f2.8 abilities?

-- hide signature --

"Very funny, Scotty! Now beam me down my clothes."
"He's dead, Jim! You grab his tri-corder. I'll get his wallet."

 ZX11's gear list:ZX11's gear list
Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM Canon 70-200 F2.8L III Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM Canon RF 85mm F1.2L USM
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow