Sharpness of new Canon RF70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM Z plus 2x TC on R5

I'm getting some sharp results using the Canon RF70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM Z plus 2x extender on the R5. This is one heck of a lens.

I sold the RF70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM and RF100-500mm to get this combo and I'm happy so far. I will miss the extra 100mm of reach, but I love the lighter overall weight and reduction in bulk.

I also love the internal zoom and short throw on the zoom ring. Minimal focus breathing is also a big bonus. Weight and balance with the 2x is great.

The only issue I've encountered so far is some added flare with the 2x, which is to be expected. Sharpness, contrast, CA and bokeh all seem good.

Here's an unedited pic to show sharpness with the 2x (at least in the center, where it's focused). I saved this image as a high quality JPG out of LR Classic without edits.

The light was low, so I used ISO 400 and took a chance on 1/160 sec shutter speed. Shot at 400mm and F5.6, which is the best you get with the 2x.


Unedited photo using Canon RF70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM Z plus 2x extender on the R5

This isn't a noteworthy image, but I haven't seen many real world examples of the RF70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM Z with 2x TC, so I thought I'd contribute.

I'll post again in another 23 years, lol.

Mark said:

I'm getting some sharp results using the Canon RF70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM Z plus 2x extender on the R5. This is one heck of a lens.

I sold the RF70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM and RF100-500mm to get this combo and I'm happy so far. I will miss the extra 100mm of reach, but I love the lighter overall weight and reduction in bulk.

I also love the internal zoom and short throw on the zoom ring. Minimal focus breathing is also a big bonus. Weight and balance with the 2x is great.

The only issue I've encountered so far is some added flare with the 2x, which is to be expected. Sharpness, contrast, CA and bokeh all seem good.

Here's an unedited pic to show sharpness with the 2x (at least in the center, where it's focused). I saved this image as a high quality JPG out of LR Classic without edits.

The light was low, so I used ISO 400 and took a chance on 1/160 sec shutter speed. Shot at 400mm and F5.6, which is the best you get with the 2x.


Unedited photo using Canon RF70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM Z plus 2x extender on the R5

This isn't a noteworthy image, but I haven't seen many real world examples of the RF70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM Z with 2x TC, so I thought I'd contribute.

Click to expand...

Thanks for posting. I've been considering swapping my Gen 1 RF 70-200/2.8 for this lens, but it all depends on how much video I'm going to be tasked to shoot in the near future. I'd be pairing it with a gimbal much of the time, so the non-extending lens barrel would be a big plus.

I don't think I'd ever be able to part with my 100-500 + 1.4x though, as I bird a lot. But the TC on the Z lens would be good to have for "emergencies" for when I don't have the big zoom along. Looks like it does OK. Thanks for posting the sample!

R2

I posted some 70-200 F2.8 Z + 2x TC yesterday as well: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/68026499

I'll also just put the 2x ones here. I'm quite thrilled with the performance. I had coincidentally gotten the 70-200 f/2.8 L 2 weeks before the Z announcement. Glad I returned it, even with the higher cost. The short and smoother zoom throw, base sharpness, higher magnification, etc. are all great, and imo it performs very well with the TC.

Images are all from the last week or so, testing out the new 400mm setup, trying out pre-capture on the R5II:

...

Gulf fritillary butterflies with 2x teleconverter









One butterfly dancing around another





Red admiral butterfly - looks like a moth with how furry it is









Pre-capture in action - longer exposures here, but makes for a fun take-off sequence.









The 0.6x magnification at 400mm is great - really happy with these recent shots, love the new lens, also loving the R5II.

I know I'll miss the 100-500, but maybe the 200-800 is a better compliment to the 70-200 anyway. Someday perhaps I will get one.

I haven't tried closeup shots with the RF 70-200 2.8 Z plus 2x extender yet, but your butterfly shots look very promising.

Mark said:

I haven't tried closeup shots with the RF 70-200 2.8 Z plus 2x extender yet, but your butterfly shots look very promising.

Click to expand...

Thanks! Yeah, I'm quite happy with it. The sharpness is still pretty outstanding with the 2x.

If you look at this review, the RF 70-200 Z with the 2x is really quite close to the sharpness of the EF 70-200 III without a teleconverter at min and max focal length: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-70-200mm-F2-8-L-IS-USM-Z-Lens.aspx#ImageQuality

It's a damn good lens.

If you go to the comparison image tests the RF is sharper. As it should be, as it is 6 years newer and takes advantage of the much heralded shorter flange distance.

With the 2x the RF is far superior to the EF III, and almost indistinguishable from the RF 100-500 at 400mm. This does say a lot for the f2.8, but boy, it is a lot of money!

Looks like the OP made a logical move for their needs. I do wonder if they were able to do their own head to head test before selling the 100-500.

homebodyMacro said:

Mark said:

I haven't tried closeup shots with the RF 70-200 2.8 Z plus 2x extender yet, but your butterfly shots look very promising.

Click to expand...

Thanks! Yeah, I'm quite happy with it. The sharpness is still pretty outstanding with the 2x.

If you look at this review, the RF 70-200 Z with the 2x is really quite close to the sharpness of the EF 70-200 III without a teleconverter at min and max focal length: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-70-200mm-F2-8-L-IS-USM-Z-Lens.aspx#ImageQuality

It's a damn good lens.

Click to expand...

Using that tool is difficult to compare when Tele converters are in play but with 400mm for the Z and 200mm for the EF, both at f5.6 the EF look to be the better option but it's not a direct comparison.

John Crowe said:

If you go to the comparison image tests the RF is sharper. As it should be, as it is 6 years newer and takes advantage of the much heralded shorter flange distance.

With the 2x the RF is far superior to the EF III, and almost indistinguishable from the RF 100-500 at 400mm. This does say a lot for the f2.8, but boy, it is a lot of money!

Click to expand...

I did notice the contrast between the RF lenses, 2 x 70-200 and 100-500 are quite different.

John Crowe said:

Looks like the OP made a logical move for their needs. I do wonder if they were able to do their own head to head test before selling the 100-500.

Click to expand...

John Crowe said:

Looks like the OP made a logical move for their needs. I do wonder if they were able to do their own head to head test before selling the 100-500.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I didn't have a chance to do a proper comparison. But I did shoot one test chart with the 100-500 at 400mm f6.3 and then the same chart with the 70-200 Z with 2x at 400mm f5.6. The lighting changed between the shots, and I managed to bump the tripod (!), but the 100-500 is very slightly sharper to my eyes. In the center they were almost indistinguishable, but the corners slightly favored the 100-500. This is pretty amazing performance for the 70-200 Z with the 2x, IMO. Not a scientific test though, for sure.


Unscientific test shot of RF100-500 at 400mm f6.3


Unscientific test shot of RF70-200 Z at 400mm f5.6

homebodyMacro said:

Mark said:

I haven't tried closeup shots with the RF 70-200 2.8 Z plus 2x extender yet, but your butterfly shots look very promising.

Click to expand...

Thanks! Yeah, I'm quite happy with it. The sharpness is still pretty outstanding with the 2x.

If you look at this review, the RF 70-200 Z with the 2x is really quite close to the sharpness of the EF 70-200 III without a teleconverter at min and max focal length: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-70-200mm-F2-8-L-IS-USM-Z-Lens.aspx#ImageQuality

It's a damn good lens.

Click to expand...

All, just to clarify - I was referring not to the TDP photo comparison tool, but to the MTF charts linked in that TDP review.

Specifically comparing RF 70-200 Z with 2x @ wide open: https://media.the-digital-picture.c...00mm-F2-8-L-IS-USM-Z-Lens-MTF-with-2x-MTF.png

to the EF 70-200 L III with no extender @ wide open: https://media.the-digital-picture.c...on-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8L-IS-III-USM-Lens-MTF.png

...

Definitely, the apertures are different, but it is just wide open vs. wide open for MTF charts. If you integrated the lines from center to edge, they're probably pretty comparable. Of course, they have different strengths and weaknesses, and the 70-200 Z with 2x extender has some weird blips at 140mm near the corner, etc.

...

Worth noting that the linked TDP review has this at the top: "This is the sharpest interchangeable zoom lens we've ever tested."

They've tested an enormous number of lenses as far as I can tell! It's not a minor accolade.

Yes, I referred to the test images. MTF charts are almost useless. Far better to refer to actual tests, especially when so readily available.

First images on any new lens are always noteworthy. Congrats on adding to your stable. I'm curious, what color did you pick and why?

I just received my new RF 70-200 Z. I'm excited to give it a go, but may have to wait a few days. I am replacing an EF 70-200mm Mk I (yes that's Mk I). Though soft by newer standards, that was a wonderful lens and one of my favorites.

Like Mr. D2, I'm keeping my RF 100-500 L. The RF 70-200 Z completes my "triumvirate", sticking to the longer side: RF 28-70 2.0L, RF 70-200 Z, and the RF 100-500 L.

Mark said:

I'm getting some sharp results using the Canon RF70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM Z plus 2x extender on the R5. This is one heck of a lens.

I sold the RF70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM and RF100-500mm to get this combo and I'm happy so far. I will miss the extra 100mm of reach, but I love the lighter overall weight and reduction in bulk.

I also love the internal zoom and short throw on the zoom ring. Minimal focus breathing is also a big bonus. Weight and balance with the 2x is great.

The only issue I've encountered so far is some added flare with the 2x, which is to be expected. Sharpness, contrast, CA and bokeh all seem good.

Here's an unedited pic to show sharpness with the 2x (at least in the center, where it's focused). I saved this image as a high quality JPG out of LR Classic without edits.

The light was low, so I used ISO 400 and took a chance on 1/160 sec shutter speed. Shot at 400mm and F5.6, which is the best you get with the 2x.


Unedited photo using Canon RF70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM Z plus 2x extender on the R5

This isn't a noteworthy image, but I haven't seen many real world examples of the RF70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM Z with 2x TC, so I thought I'd contribute.

I'll post again in another 23 years, lol.

Click to expand...

It's still an expensive lens in the UK. I noticed one retailer a little less expensive at £3150 but no grey imports yet. Lots of wonga for that lens.

Thank you for the information and great photos.

I'm relatively new to photography, normally shooting my kids sports, a mix of indoor and outdoor.

I borrowed a 70-200mm F2.8 older version and it made a big difference shooting indoor sports like hockey and recognized the need for one.

For outdoor field sports I feel like the 70-200mm just doesn't have enough distance. After doing some reading it sounds like the 70-200mm Z with 2x teleconverter could be a perfect compromise. Ideally I would have a separate lease (eg. 100-500mm) but that is way to expensive right now and I think I need to choose one.

My question is respect to the 70-200mm Z with 2x teleconverter and its ability to shoot moving objects.

Thanks!

Detox99 said:

Thank you for the information and great photos.

I'm relatively new to photography, normally shooting my kids sports, a mix of indoor and outdoor.

I borrowed a 70-200mm F2.8 older version and it made a big difference shooting indoor sports like hockey and recognized the need for one.

For outdoor field sports I feel like the 70-200mm just doesn't have enough distance. After doing some reading it sounds like the 70-200mm Z with 2x teleconverter could be a perfect compromise. Ideally I would have a separate lease (eg. 100-500mm) but that is way to expensive right now and I think I need to choose one.

My question is respect to the 70-200mm Z with 2x teleconverter and its ability to shoot moving objects.

Click to expand...

We move to the 70-200 Z x1.4 or x2.0 when the light starts to drop of an evening. Events are f1 and related racing, tractor pulling and road based car racing. The 100-500 gets put back in the bag.

If we were imaging some charts then no Tele would perform the best, x1.4 slight reduction, X2 further reduction. However AF stays quick and the teles provide some extra versatility.

We also have 100-300 to use as well.

We did have an RF 600 F4 with us last event (not on my body) which is great if your shooting from the same spot and expecting a car out of a bend for example.

All that said the 100-500 with sufficient light is a really good and versatile lens. 5x zoom range is very helpful. I've answered event next weekend and that will be on one body all day until dusk appears.

Detox99 said:

Thanks!

Click to expand...

Detox99 said:

Thank you for the information and great photos.

I'm relatively new to photography, normally shooting my kids sports, a mix of indoor and outdoor.

I borrowed a 70-200mm F2.8 older version and it made a big difference shooting indoor sports like hockey and recognized the need for one.

For outdoor field sports I feel like the 70-200mm just doesn't have enough distance. After doing some reading it sounds like the 70-200mm Z with 2x teleconverter could be a perfect compromise. Ideally I would have a separate lease (eg. 100-500mm) but that is way to expensive right now and I think I need to choose one.

My question is respect to the 70-200mm Z with 2x teleconverter and its ability to shoot moving objects.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

+1 to Ephemeris' post above.

Field sports season has just started around here and I've been giving the switch (from the RF 70-200/2.8 OG) some careful consideration myself. And my body just doesn't want to lug the 100-300 around for that extra stop between 200 and 280/300mm (or 400 with a 2x).

Realize too that when the sun is setting, an additional stop (or even two) basically only gives you an extra 10 minutes of (quality) shooting time when all is said and done. Those ISOs build fast for everyone!

R2

--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

R2D2 said:

Detox99 said:

Thank you for the information and great photos.

I'm relatively new to photography, normally shooting my kids sports, a mix of indoor and outdoor.

I borrowed a 70-200mm F2.8 older version and it made a big difference shooting indoor sports like hockey and recognized the need for one.

For outdoor field sports I feel like the 70-200mm just doesn't have enough distance. After doing some reading it sounds like the 70-200mm Z with 2x teleconverter could be a perfect compromise. Ideally I would have a separate lease (eg. 100-500mm) but that is way to expensive right now and I think I need to choose one.

My question is respect to the 70-200mm Z with 2x teleconverter and its ability to shoot moving objects.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

+1 to Ephemeris' post above.

Field sports season has just started around here and I've been giving the switch (from the RF 70-200/2.8 OG) some careful consideration myself. And my body just doesn't want to lug the 100-300 around for that extra stop between 200 and 280/300mm (or 400 with a 2x).

Realize too that when the sun is setting, an additional stop (or even two) basically only gives you an extra 10 minutes of (quality) shooting time when all is said and done. Those ISOs build fast for everyone!

R2

Click to expand...

That's very true. I'm not sure of your location but even in the UK it doesn't give much more time than that and when I'm more equatorial it's even less. I think Azerbaijan will be my next hotter place.

Even with a 100-300 or 400 f2.8, an r52 one quickly gets to >10000 ISO which is my queue for a hot beverage

R2D2 said:

--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

Click to expand...