Reading mode: Light Dark

Anyone regret getting RF 100-500 instead of 70-200?

Go to last post
D

dtgq

Well-known member
Messages
112
Reaction score
13
It's basically $100 more.

Would the micro-contrast be worse?

Would I miss the constant f2.8 if I rarely find it necessary?

Could AI blur in post adequately compensate for the lack of bokeh?

I currently have an EF 70-200 2.8 II but can easily sell it to buy the RF. The RF seems to have better AF and IS for video, micro-contrast/colors, MFD, midframe and corner sharpness. The RF images look more crisp/clean/punchy to me, it makes the EF images look "analog" and unsure in comparison. The physical differences aren't a big factor.

The one thing I never liked about 70-200 is that a lens of this FL range doesn't zoom enough to justify itself, which is why I'd always liked the idea of a 24-105 + 100-400/500 kit (instead of 24-70 + 70-200). It would've been better for travel, climbing miles of stairs to take photos from mountain peaks, motorsports, karts, etc. I also don't care about the 1 stop of extra light... that's so tiny it barely matters; if light is limited then I need a flash or f1.2, not breadcrumbs of a measly f2.8.

But my hesitation is that trying to take human photos wouldn't make sense with it, so in reality I'd have to factor in the cost of at least another 85mm or 135mm purchase. Also, I get the sense that the RF 70-200 2.8 is the pinnacle of its FL with no compromise, while the RF 100-500 is mid-tier in its FL with plenty of compromise.

So... should I get it, or would I regret it?
 
dtgq said:
It's basically $100 more.

Would the micro-contrast be worse?

Would I miss the constant f2.8 if I rarely find it necessary?

Could AI blur in post adequately compensate for the lack of bokeh?

I currently have an EF 70-200 2.8 II but can easily sell it to buy the RF. The RF seems to have better AF and IS for video, micro-contrast/colors, MFD, midframe and corner sharpness. The RF images look more crisp/clean/punchy to me, it makes the EF images look "analog" and unsure in comparison. The physical differences aren't a big factor.

The one thing I never liked about 70-200 is that a lens of this FL range doesn't zoom enough to justify itself, which is why I'd always liked the idea of a 24-105 + 100-400/500 kit (instead of 24-70 + 70-200). It would've been better for travel, climbing miles of stairs to take photos from mountain peaks, motorsports, karts, etc. I also don't care about the 1 stop of extra light... that's so tiny it barely matters; if light is limited then I need a flash or f1.2, not breadcrumbs of a measly f2.8.

But my hesitation is that trying to take human photos wouldn't make sense with it, so in reality I'd have to factor in the cost of at least another 85mm or 135mm purchase. Also, I get the sense that the RF 70-200 2.8 is the pinnacle of its FL with no compromise, while the RF 100-500 is mid-tier in its FL with plenty of compromise.

So... should I get it, or would I regret it?
Click to expand...
Ask yourself do you regularly need more than 200mm? Remember neither of the RF 70-200s take TCs. Personally I have 70-200/4 and 100-500. Works for me, I rarely do portraiture but plenty of travel and wildlife. I would not rely on any post processing technique to modify bokeh.
 
Last edited:
I have the 100-500 and the 70-200 f4. I use both, but I think I use the 100-500 more. Birds, sports, etc. But...it's hard to beat the portability of that tiny zoom. And no, I don't miss that extra stop.
 
It's not about $100, the two lenses have absolutely different purposes.

There is very little change to perspective at focal lengths longer than I'd say 135mm, certainly longer than 200mm. So telephoto lenses are used when you cannot physically come closer like birds/animals, sports events etc, not for artistic purposes. On top of that long distance always deteriorates the image quality due to atmospheric density and other effects, so in most cases if you can get physically closer - you should.

So I think it's really a question of whether you are limited in getting physically closer to your subjects or not.

If you've never had a long telephoto lens before, you should probably go for it to cure the GAS. I've got one, shot some birds, and took it on a few vacations. Then it sat on the shelf for a few years and I sold it. Now I am safe from GAS even when the fanciest whites are on sale.
 
As drsnoopy pointed out, the most notable negative of the RF 70-200 2.8 is its inability to take a TC.

Your EF70-2002.8 can be adapted with TC's to b e a generally usable 280mmF4, or 400mm F5.6, whereas the RF is limited to 200mm.
 
I do miss the smaller aperture but I keep an EF70-200 ii so I can also use a Tele (1.4 iii).

However the lens focal lengths are for quite different purposes.

On rare occasion we have rented the rf 100-300 f2.8 which does allow full compatibility with a Tele.
 
Apples to oranges on this one. Perhaps something closer like 200mm vs 300mm at the long end. All depends on someone's specific needs.

At one time when I had EF lenses I had the 100-400 II but I also had the 70-200 2.8 II for weddings and other events. I used that with my 24-70 2.8 II. The 100-400 was for hobby wildlife shooting.
 
Banderras said:
It's not about $100, the two lenses have absolutely different purposes.

There is very little change to perspective at focal lengths longer than I'd say 135mm, certainly longer than 200mm. So telephoto lenses are used when you cannot physically come closer like birds/animals, sports events etc, not for artistic purposes. On top of that long distance always deteriorates the image quality due to atmospheric density and other effects, so in most cases if you can get physically closer - you should.

So I think it's really a question of whether you are limited in getting physically closer to your subjects or not.

If you've never had a long telephoto lens before, you should probably go for it to cure the GAS. I've got one, shot some birds, and took it on a few vacations. Then it sat on the shelf for a few years and I sold it. Now I am safe from GAS even when the fanciest whites are on sale.
Click to expand...
As a doctor I can advise you that GAS is actually incurable. You can be in remission for a while, but it always comes back, usually worse, and may spread to other hobbies.
 
I had the EF 70-200 F2.8 v1 and I upgraded to the RF version of that when I went mirrorless. Was having issues with the EF lens. I had it repaired years ago as the diaphragm broke and it was never the same.

I also have the EF 100-400II. I love the lens. The zoom tension is much less than the RF 100-500 which makes it a joy to shoot birds and the like.

If you had to only pick one? Hard to say. It all depends on how often you shoot above 200mm. I think the 70-200 f4 or f2.8 would be a better all around lens, but it all depends on your needs.

3 things of note

- The zoom is really tight and takes about 1/4 more of a turn to go from 70-200 vs the EF model. When doing sports, the fact that the zoom ring is much tighter is a pain, plus the fact I need to turn it more to go from 70 to 200.

- The lens is not an internal zoom. This has a benefit of being much smaller, but not sure how it would hold up in dusty environments. I used to shoot a lot of motocross events and my camera and lens always had a layer of dust on it by the end of the day. with the external zoom, there is more chance of dust getting inside. Thankfully I do not shoot motocross any more.

- The RF lens is incredibly sharp and quick to focus.
 
dtgq said:
It's basically $100 more.

Would the micro-contrast be worse?
Click to expand...
Both are fine lenses
dtgq said:
Would I miss the constant f2.8 if I rarely find it necessary?
Click to expand...
Only you can say that f/5 or so vs f/2.8 at 200mm
dtgq said:
Could AI blur in post adequately compensate for the lack of bokeh?
Click to expand...
Sometimes
dtgq said:
I currently have an EF 70-200 2.8 II but can easily sell it to buy the RF.
Click to expand...
The EF 70-200 II is very very good.
dtgq said:
The RF seems to have better AF and IS for video, micro-contrast/colors, MFD, midframe and corner sharpness. The RF images look more crisp/clean/punchy to me, it makes the EF images look "analog" and unsure in comparison. The physical differences aren't a big factor.
Click to expand...
Really doubt for most purposes anyone would notice bar an extreme pixel peeper. If someone did not know which image and which lens doubt anyone would be able to tell.
dtgq said:
The one thing I never liked about 70-200 is that a lens of this FL range doesn't zoom enough to justify itself, which is why I'd always liked the idea of a 24-105 + 100-400/500 kit (instead of 24-70 + 70-200).
Click to expand...
Exactly why I have the EF II version for 1/3rd of the price (based on 2nd hand good copy dealer prices).
dtgq said:
It would've been better for travel, climbing miles of stairs to take photos from mountain peaks, motorsports, karts, etc. I also don't care about the 1 stop of extra light... that's so tiny it barely matters; if light is limited then I need a flash or f1.2, not breadcrumbs of a measly f2.8.

But my hesitation is that trying to take human photos wouldn't make sense with it, so in reality I'd have to factor in the cost of at least another 85mm or 135mm purchase.
Click to expand...
You could go 100-500 and add the 135 f/2 L
dtgq said:
Also, I get the sense that the RF 70-200 2.8 is the pinnacle of its FL with no compromise, while the RF 100-500 is mid-tier in its FL with plenty of compromise.#
Click to expand...
100-500 is very very good - if the apertures work for you then really no compromises.
 
Also depends on the 70-200 F stops. If I shot something like my kids in door swims meets, volley, etc I'd likely get the 2.8. Outside birding, etc 100-500.

Someone here once said for birding/wildlife 400mm is the minimum. Also you can't put a TC on the 70-200 I don't think. Not sure if that applies to both f4 and f2.8.
 
Zeee said:
Also depends on the 70-200 F stops. If I shot something like my kids in door swims meets, volley, etc I'd likely get the 2.8. Outside birding, etc 100-500.

Someone here once said for birding/wildlife 400mm is the minimum. Also you can't put a TC on the 70-200 I don't think. Not sure if that applies to both f4 and f2.8.
Click to expand...
 
I am happy to own both! They serve very different purposes. My rf100-500 lives om my r7, the rf70-200 on my r5.
 
drsnoopy said:
Zeee said:
Also depends on the 70-200 F stops. If I shot something like my kids in door swims meets, volley, etc I'd likely get the 2.8. Outside birding, etc 100-500.

Someone here once said for birding/wildlife 400mm is the minimum. Also you can't put a TC on the 70-200 I don't think. Not sure if that applies to both f4 and f2.8.
Click to expand...
As I noted above, neither of the RF 70-200 lenses take TCs.
Click to expand...
Missed that. Thanks
 
Zeee said:
drsnoopy said:
Zeee said:
Also depends on the 70-200 F stops. If I shot something like my kids in door swims meets, volley, etc I'd likely get the 2.8. Outside birding, etc 100-500.

Someone here once said for birding/wildlife 400mm is the minimum. Also you can't put a TC on the 70-200 I don't think. Not sure if that applies to both f4 and f2.8.
Click to expand...
As I noted above, neither of the RF 70-200 lenses take TCs.
Click to expand...
Missed that. Thanks
Click to expand...
The RF 100-500 also isn't fully Tele compatible. It works from a minimum of 300mm onwards giving the minimum teleconverted length of 420mm.
Zeee said:
--
You just need to keep the forests wet
Click to expand...
 
Franz Kerschbaum said:
I am happy to own both! They serve very different purposes. My rf100-500 lives om my r7, the rf70-200 on my r5.
Click to expand...
Normally my 100-500 lives on my R7 and the RF 24-105 F4 lives on the R6II.

I do like to use the 100-500 on the R6II with or without the TC.
 
Ephemeris said:
Zeee said:
drsnoopy said:
Zeee said:
Also depends on the 70-200 F stops. If I shot something like my kids in door swims meets, volley, etc I'd likely get the 2.8. Outside birding, etc 100-500.

Someone here once said for birding/wildlife 400mm is the minimum. Also you can't put a TC on the 70-200 I don't think. Not sure if that applies to both f4 and f2.8.
Click to expand...
As I noted above, neither of the RF 70-200 lenses take TCs.
Click to expand...
Missed that. Thanks
Click to expand...
The RF 100-500 also isn't fully Tele compatible. It works from a minimum of 300mm onwards giving the minimum teleconverted length of 420mm.
Click to expand...
That I'm aware of. I got a local travel bag so I could leave the TC and lens hood on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Replacing the OG RF 70-200L and RF 100-500L with an RF 70-200Z and 2 X TC?
2
Replies
22
Views
3K
homebodyMacro
H
Myles Baker
RF lenses. What I have & what I'm looking at
2 3
Replies
47
Views
2K
picturetime2
P
T
How flexible are the RF 600 f11 ?
2
Replies
24
Views
4K
EJ Fudd
EJ Fudd
Wildlife Guy
Any real world experience R5 II + 1x/2x TC + RF 70-200 f2.8 L IS Z
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
homebodyMacro
H
A
RF 70-200 Z vs 100 2.8 macro.
Replies
9
Views
670
jerry
jerry

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top