A very mixed experience with the RF 70-200 f2.8

lawny13 wrote:

BobNL wrote:

PGSanta wrote:

These types of posts just make me chuckle.

Well at least it provoked something

1. If you're a someone covering fast paced sports, the throw might be an issue.

yes

2. The lens IS NOT slower to AF than the EF on the R... if you're experiencing this, it's because of YOU, or your lens is defective.

good to know it might just be me... But yes, the AF in itself is not slower. Under the circumstances, it's execution was though. Might have been the lens, the newer firmware, an off-day from me, or... yes I'm trying to figure out what the reason was it didn't work as expected/hoped for.

3. If you're going to make a claim that the lens lacks a certain "je ne said quoi", then proceed to not give examples, you come off as inane. Post examples.

Well, that won't help much with a 'je ne sais quoi'. It's just a subjective observation from my side. Not something that can be pointed out in just 'a' picture. I took about 4000 photos that evening. It's an overall feeling going through them. Can't point out a flaw it just, for me, lacks something.

I gotta agree with the rest. You should post examples. in fact if you have both lenses yous should be able to provide examples of the same scene and see if others "fee." the same as you about it.

Don't have it anymore so can't shoot the same scene with it. Providing photos as examples is more or less impossible, there is no reference. If you want to see some examples have a look here: https://www.vstudio-fotografie.de/f54753930 Most competition shots here are EOS R with RF 70-200. Not that I don't want or can't show examples, I really don't see the point.

Here is the thing I gather reading your post.

You were excited about the lens. You got it and played around with it around the house. It raised your excitement and you were looking even more forward to using it. Up until this point there is no mention of a missing 'je ne sais quoi'

The 'je ne sais quoi' were not my words As an aside, around the house in this case means forest, nature and a fashion atelier. It included people and more but lacked of course fast action.

Then... you shot it at the event. The throw threw you off. The AF didn't work as you thought it should. You even mentioned that you might have been off your game. Maybe you were, or maybe the lens experience through you off your game.
Basically what I am saying is that if it was an off night, could the experience not have influenced your perception of the images as well? Perhaps you didn't capture the moment/emotions as you usually would have. All this plays a role in my opinion.

Agree that that is a possibility but I did grab some good moments. The whole feeling came after processing some bulk. Maybe it would be the easiest to simply state, I don't like the look the lens creates.

But I do get what you are saying. Corrections of the lens might remove certain aberrations and artifacts that sometimes contribute to other things positively. Micro contrast was all the rage once upon a time, as well as contrast images. When sony started coming out with these high DR sensor many people complained that out of camera images looked flat. But that was a product of higher DR. Personally I prefer the higher DR, which I can scale back and add myself.

I sure do wish the R had a bit more DR. Although its not that important for my main shooting which occurs mostly at iso3200 and above.

If this lens requires an extra 10% adjustment to clarity/contrast to give us the same look/feel as the EF III, then I don't see it as an issue. Even after that if there is still more of a soulless feeling about it then I would agree. But without comparison images... it can all be imagined, or way more subtle to others than it is for you.

Problem is that I don't like the effect of the clarity tool in Lightroom. It doesn't make people look nicer. The one in capture one is better but still no substitute for look a lens creates.

Just to be clear, my main issue has been the AF performance. And I am still puzzled by what happened. initial testing revealed fast focusing. Real life experience in a low light environment was very different. Even thinking if the kind of lighting may have been a factor in this.

Anyway, if I could afford it I would have both lenses. As for corporate event work this might be a fantastic lens, clean, light, fast and compact.

lawny13 wrote:

BobNL wrote:

PGSanta wrote:

These types of posts just make me chuckle.

Well at least it provoked something

1. If you're a someone covering fast paced sports, the throw might be an issue.

yes

2. The lens IS NOT slower to AF than the EF on the R... if you're experiencing this, it's because of YOU, or your lens is defective.

good to know it might just be me... But yes, the AF in itself is not slower. Under the circumstances, it's execution was though. Might have been the lens, the newer firmware, an off-day from me, or... yes I'm trying to figure out what the reason was it didn't work as expected/hoped for.

3. If you're going to make a claim that the lens lacks a certain "je ne said quoi", then proceed to not give examples, you come off as inane. Post examples.

Well, that won't help much with a 'je ne sais quoi'. It's just a subjective observation from my side. Not something that can be pointed out in just 'a' picture. I took about 4000 photos that evening. It's an overall feeling going through them. Can't point out a flaw it just, for me, lacks something.

I gotta agree with the rest. You should post examples. in fact if you have both lenses yous should be able to provide examples of the same scene and see if others "fee." the same as you about it.

Here is the thing I gather reading your post.

You were excited about the lens. You got it and played around with it around the house. It raised your excitement and you were looking even more forward to using it. Up until this point there is no mention of a missing 'je ne sais quoi'
Then... you shot it at the event. The throw threw you off. The AF didn't work as you thought it should. You even mentioned that you might have been off your game. Maybe you were, or maybe the lens experience through you off your game.
Basically what I am saying is that if it was an off night, could the experience not have influenced your perception of the images as well? Perhaps you didn't capture the moment/emotions as you usually would have. All this plays a role in my opinion.
But I do get what you are saying. Corrections of the lens might remove certain aberrations and artifacts that sometimes contribute to other things positively. Micro contrast was all the rage once upon a time, as well as contrast images. When sony started coming out with these high DR sensor many people complained that out of camera images looked flat. But that was a product of higher DR. Personally I prefer the higher DR, which I can scale back and add myself.
If this lens requires an extra 10% adjustment to clarity/contrast to give us the same look/feel as the EF III, then I don't see it as an issue. Even after that if there is still more of a soulless feeling about it then I would agree. But without comparison images... it can all be imagined, or way more subtle to others than it is for you.

Makes sense that some error in the EF lens is adding beauty in the eyes of the owner that the new lens may have corrected for.  Making the photo look like what my eye sees (perfect) may not be ideal.

Not that you are doing it,...but, why do people who don't love the RF 70-200 get the third degree?  Would a comment on the EF 85mm f/1.8 not having character and seeming flat result in a similar demand for photos or supporting evidence?  Is it because of the money readers have invested in the new RF 70-200 makes them more protective?

And stating that no evidence will be given, as if there are no reasons to not share photos (paid job?) on DPReview, then demands for evidence are doubled down?

Warning to those who don't love the RF lens, you will suffer consequences.

ZX11 wrote:

lawny13 wrote:

BobNL wrote:

PGSanta wrote:

These types of posts just make me chuckle.

Well at least it provoked something

1. If you're a someone covering fast paced sports, the throw might be an issue.

yes

2. The lens IS NOT slower to AF than the EF on the R... if you're experiencing this, it's because of YOU, or your lens is defective.

good to know it might just be me... But yes, the AF in itself is not slower. Under the circumstances, it's execution was though. Might have been the lens, the newer firmware, an off-day from me, or... yes I'm trying to figure out what the reason was it didn't work as expected/hoped for.

3. If you're going to make a claim that the lens lacks a certain "je ne said quoi", then proceed to not give examples, you come off as inane. Post examples.

Well, that won't help much with a 'je ne sais quoi'. It's just a subjective observation from my side. Not something that can be pointed out in just 'a' picture. I took about 4000 photos that evening. It's an overall feeling going through them. Can't point out a flaw it just, for me, lacks something.

I gotta agree with the rest. You should post examples. in fact if you have both lenses yous should be able to provide examples of the same scene and see if others "fee." the same as you about it.

Here is the thing I gather reading your post.

You were excited about the lens. You got it and played around with it around the house. It raised your excitement and you were looking even more forward to using it. Up until this point there is no mention of a missing 'je ne sais quoi'
Then... you shot it at the event. The throw threw you off. The AF didn't work as you thought it should. You even mentioned that you might have been off your game. Maybe you were, or maybe the lens experience through you off your game.
Basically what I am saying is that if it was an off night, could the experience not have influenced your perception of the images as well? Perhaps you didn't capture the moment/emotions as you usually would have. All this plays a role in my opinion.
But I do get what you are saying. Corrections of the lens might remove certain aberrations and artifacts that sometimes contribute to other things positively. Micro contrast was all the rage once upon a time, as well as contrast images. When sony started coming out with these high DR sensor many people complained that out of camera images looked flat. But that was a product of higher DR. Personally I prefer the higher DR, which I can scale back and add myself.
If this lens requires an extra 10% adjustment to clarity/contrast to give us the same look/feel as the EF III, then I don't see it as an issue. Even after that if there is still more of a soulless feeling about it then I would agree. But without comparison images... it can all be imagined, or way more subtle to others than it is for you.

Makes sense that some error in the EF lens is adding beauty in the eyes of the owner that the new lens may have corrected for. Making the photo look like what my eye sees (perfect) may not be ideal.

Not that you are doing it,...but, why do people who don't love the RF 70-200 get the third degree? Would a comment on the EF 85mm f/1.8 not having character and seeming flat result in a similar demand for photos or supporting evidence? Is it because of the money readers have invested in the new RF 70-200 makes them more protective?

The lens is very, very good, that’s why. Not only is it optically excellent the AF is super reliable and fast in a wide range of lighting conditions. It’s easily the best lens I’ve ever owned and I would rank it above the RF 28-70 in every way. It might be the best zoom lens ever made. Sure, everyone is entitled to their opinion but reality begs to differ. Let’s try to be logical here. Does anyone really think Canon made a dud lens for such an important focal range??? Really??? Give it a rest already the lens is superb.

And stating that no evidence will be given, as if there are no reasons to not share photos (paid job?) on DPReview, then demands for evidence are doubled down?

Warning to those who don't love the RF lens, you will suffer consequences.

-- 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 wrote:

lawny13 wrote:

BobNL wrote:

PGSanta wrote:

These types of posts just make me chuckle.

Well at least it provoked something

1. If you're a someone covering fast paced sports, the throw might be an issue.

yes

2. The lens IS NOT slower to AF than the EF on the R... if you're experiencing this, it's because of YOU, or your lens is defective.

good to know it might just be me... But yes, the AF in itself is not slower. Under the circumstances, it's execution was though. Might have been the lens, the newer firmware, an off-day from me, or... yes I'm trying to figure out what the reason was it didn't work as expected/hoped for.

3. If you're going to make a claim that the lens lacks a certain "je ne said quoi", then proceed to not give examples, you come off as inane. Post examples.

Well, that won't help much with a 'je ne sais quoi'. It's just a subjective observation from my side. Not something that can be pointed out in just 'a' picture. I took about 4000 photos that evening. It's an overall feeling going through them. Can't point out a flaw it just, for me, lacks something.

I gotta agree with the rest. You should post examples. in fact if you have both lenses yous should be able to provide examples of the same scene and see if others "fee." the same as you about it.

Here is the thing I gather reading your post.

You were excited about the lens. You got it and played around with it around the house. It raised your excitement and you were looking even more forward to using it. Up until this point there is no mention of a missing 'je ne sais quoi'
Then... you shot it at the event. The throw threw you off. The AF didn't work as you thought it should. You even mentioned that you might have been off your game. Maybe you were, or maybe the lens experience through you off your game.
Basically what I am saying is that if it was an off night, could the experience not have influenced your perception of the images as well? Perhaps you didn't capture the moment/emotions as you usually would have. All this plays a role in my opinion.
But I do get what you are saying. Corrections of the lens might remove certain aberrations and artifacts that sometimes contribute to other things positively. Micro contrast was all the rage once upon a time, as well as contrast images. When sony started coming out with these high DR sensor many people complained that out of camera images looked flat. But that was a product of higher DR. Personally I prefer the higher DR, which I can scale back and add myself.
If this lens requires an extra 10% adjustment to clarity/contrast to give us the same look/feel as the EF III, then I don't see it as an issue. Even after that if there is still more of a soulless feeling about it then I would agree. But without comparison images... it can all be imagined, or way more subtle to others than it is for you.

Makes sense that some error in the EF lens is adding beauty in the eyes of the owner that the new lens may have corrected for. Making the photo look like what my eye sees (perfect) may not be ideal.

Not that you are doing it,...but, why do people who don't love the RF 70-200 get the third degree? Would a comment on the EF 85mm f/1.8 not having character and seeming flat result in a similar demand for photos or supporting evidence? Is it because of the money readers have invested in the new RF 70-200 makes them more protective?

And stating that no evidence will be given, as if there are no reasons to not share photos (paid job?) on DPReview, then demands for evidence are doubled down?

Warning to those who don't love the RF lens, you will suffer consequences.

I don’t even own the lens yet.  I decided to wait until it drops in price a little (I expect a 2-300 rebate by summer), and to give the production run enough time to even out in case the minimum focus issue was production related.

It’s a new lens, opinions on it are still being formulated, so it’s frustrating to see posts of little value and obviously wrong information get put out there.

OP has a gripe about the lens, then pushes further with a gripe that’s very clearly false... of course it’s going to get called out, and it should.  It has nothing to do with an investment, it has to do with logic.

if OP was serious about a discussion, all he had to do was post side by side pics of his front yard, and we could have a meaningful conversation on subjective qualities of the lens, but he’s not interested in that... he’s interested in complaining... which hey he’s free to do, and we’re free to point it out.

JE River wrote:

To the OP, there;s no point in going on with people who want to prove your personal preference as being objectively wrong. You'll never win or convince them otherwise.

For example, I recently commented how I don't like the tripod mount hole on Fuji's new cameras being so close to the battery door. Fuji enthusiasts jumped all down my throat telling me that entry-level cameras never get put on a tripod, and that I should just use a different mounting system that works without blocking the battery door. Why not just design the camera so there is no issue to begin with?

I would also likely receive death threats if I ever said how I feel about Fuji colors, which isn't favorable.

The issue arises when a person makes claims about image quality then doesn't provide visual evidence regarding their claims. I would love to have a healthy debate about the topic but this is a visual medium, if we are debating image quality without an image I don't know that we are actually debating anything at all. I hope that makes sense????

As to all the discussion of special optical attributes, those hard-to-define magical charcteristics that some people treasure, I certainly can't say, because I don't have the RF 70-200 and have not even tried it out.

I also, for the same reason, can't say anything about the focusing speed or accuracy.

I am very attracted to two things about the RF lens that are superior to my EF 70-200 II: the much more compact size plus light weight, and the closer focusing distance.

However, as to reproduceable optical differences, I have looked at a direct comparison of the two at Bryan Carnathan's The-Digital-Picture.com. This usually reliable source showed the image quality test results of two lenses, the EF on a 5DsR and the RF on the EOS R. This is a somehwat unequal comparison, because of the higher resolution of the DSLR and its missing AA filter. However, this advantage of the 5DsR is actually something which should increase the likelihood that one could see the lens flaws in the EF lens. Amazingly, there doesn't seem to be much of any flaw in the lens, according to the test images, although there are other ways to test lens image quality that wouldn't show up here. I can say, that in this test's results between the two lenses, the EF lens does look a little bit sharper, especially in the corners. So, perhaps what some people may be noticing is this, that the EF lens has just a tiny bit more sharpness along the edges and in the corners. It's a very small difference, but it looks like it's there.

PGSanta wrote:

ZX11 wrote:

lawny13 wrote:

BobNL wrote:

PGSanta wrote:

These types of posts just make me chuckle.

Well at least it provoked something

1. If you're a someone covering fast paced sports, the throw might be an issue.

yes

2. The lens IS NOT slower to AF than the EF on the R... if you're experiencing this, it's because of YOU, or your lens is defective.

good to know it might just be me... But yes, the AF in itself is not slower. Under the circumstances, it's execution was though. Might have been the lens, the newer firmware, an off-day from me, or... yes I'm trying to figure out what the reason was it didn't work as expected/hoped for.

3. If you're going to make a claim that the lens lacks a certain "je ne said quoi", then proceed to not give examples, you come off as inane. Post examples.

Well, that won't help much with a 'je ne sais quoi'. It's just a subjective observation from my side. Not something that can be pointed out in just 'a' picture. I took about 4000 photos that evening. It's an overall feeling going through them. Can't point out a flaw it just, for me, lacks something.

I gotta agree with the rest. You should post examples. in fact if you have both lenses yous should be able to provide examples of the same scene and see if others "fee." the same as you about it.

Here is the thing I gather reading your post.

You were excited about the lens. You got it and played around with it around the house. It raised your excitement and you were looking even more forward to using it. Up until this point there is no mention of a missing 'je ne sais quoi'
Then... you shot it at the event. The throw threw you off. The AF didn't work as you thought it should. You even mentioned that you might have been off your game. Maybe you were, or maybe the lens experience through you off your game.
Basically what I am saying is that if it was an off night, could the experience not have influenced your perception of the images as well? Perhaps you didn't capture the moment/emotions as you usually would have. All this plays a role in my opinion.
But I do get what you are saying. Corrections of the lens might remove certain aberrations and artifacts that sometimes contribute to other things positively. Micro contrast was all the rage once upon a time, as well as contrast images. When sony started coming out with these high DR sensor many people complained that out of camera images looked flat. But that was a product of higher DR. Personally I prefer the higher DR, which I can scale back and add myself.
If this lens requires an extra 10% adjustment to clarity/contrast to give us the same look/feel as the EF III, then I don't see it as an issue. Even after that if there is still more of a soulless feeling about it then I would agree. But without comparison images... it can all be imagined, or way more subtle to others than it is for you.

Makes sense that some error in the EF lens is adding beauty in the eyes of the owner that the new lens may have corrected for. Making the photo look like what my eye sees (perfect) may not be ideal.

Not that you are doing it,...but, why do people who don't love the RF 70-200 get the third degree? Would a comment on the EF 85mm f/1.8 not having character and seeming flat result in a similar demand for photos or supporting evidence? Is it because of the money readers have invested in the new RF 70-200 makes them more protective?

And stating that no evidence will be given, as if there are no reasons to not share photos (paid job?) on DPReview, then demands for evidence are doubled down?

Warning to those who don't love the RF lens, you will suffer consequences.

I don’t even own the lens yet. I decided to wait until it drops in price a little (I expect a 2-300 rebate by summer), and to give the production run enough time to even out in case the minimum focus issue was production related.

It’s a new lens, opinions on it are still being formulated, so it’s frustrating to see posts of little value and obviously wrong information get put out there.

OP has a gripe about the lens, then pushes further with a gripe that’s very clearly false... of course it’s going to get called out, and it should. It has nothing to do with an investment, it has to do with logic.

if OP was serious about a discussion, all he had to do was post side by side pics of his front yard, and we could have a meaningful conversation on subjective qualities of the lens, but he’s not interested in that... he’s interested in complaining... which hey he’s free to do, and we’re free to point it out.

I think his statement is opinion.  He even says it is a subjective observation.  It seems unprovable and not a lab spec provable fact.  As unprovable as a feeling about the lens.  Also, a thing that you can not say is clearly false.

You can only say that you have the opposite subjective observation or that others have the opposite observation.  Not that it is clearly false.

I figure the lenses of this price level are all very capable and tend to be selected, or rejected, based on factors other than IQ.  Factors such as IS, IS modes, focus range, construction, price, design of focus/zoom ring, camera bodies that can use it, etc.

ZX11 wrote:

PGSanta wrote:

ZX11 wrote:

lawny13 wrote:

BobNL wrote:

PGSanta wrote:

These types of posts just make me chuckle.

Well at least it provoked something

1. If you're a someone covering fast paced sports, the throw might be an issue.

yes

2. The lens IS NOT slower to AF than the EF on the R... if you're experiencing this, it's because of YOU, or your lens is defective.

good to know it might just be me... But yes, the AF in itself is not slower. Under the circumstances, it's execution was though. Might have been the lens, the newer firmware, an off-day from me, or... yes I'm trying to figure out what the reason was it didn't work as expected/hoped for.

3. If you're going to make a claim that the lens lacks a certain "je ne said quoi", then proceed to not give examples, you come off as inane. Post examples.

Well, that won't help much with a 'je ne sais quoi'. It's just a subjective observation from my side. Not something that can be pointed out in just 'a' picture. I took about 4000 photos that evening. It's an overall feeling going through them. Can't point out a flaw it just, for me, lacks something.

I gotta agree with the rest. You should post examples. in fact if you have both lenses yous should be able to provide examples of the same scene and see if others "fee." the same as you about it.

Here is the thing I gather reading your post.

You were excited about the lens. You got it and played around with it around the house. It raised your excitement and you were looking even more forward to using it. Up until this point there is no mention of a missing 'je ne sais quoi'
Then... you shot it at the event. The throw threw you off. The AF didn't work as you thought it should. You even mentioned that you might have been off your game. Maybe you were, or maybe the lens experience through you off your game.
Basically what I am saying is that if it was an off night, could the experience not have influenced your perception of the images as well? Perhaps you didn't capture the moment/emotions as you usually would have. All this plays a role in my opinion.
But I do get what you are saying. Corrections of the lens might remove certain aberrations and artifacts that sometimes contribute to other things positively. Micro contrast was all the rage once upon a time, as well as contrast images. When sony started coming out with these high DR sensor many people complained that out of camera images looked flat. But that was a product of higher DR. Personally I prefer the higher DR, which I can scale back and add myself.
If this lens requires an extra 10% adjustment to clarity/contrast to give us the same look/feel as the EF III, then I don't see it as an issue. Even after that if there is still more of a soulless feeling about it then I would agree. But without comparison images... it can all be imagined, or way more subtle to others than it is for you.

Makes sense that some error in the EF lens is adding beauty in the eyes of the owner that the new lens may have corrected for. Making the photo look like what my eye sees (perfect) may not be ideal.

Not that you are doing it,...but, why do people who don't love the RF 70-200 get the third degree? Would a comment on the EF 85mm f/1.8 not having character and seeming flat result in a similar demand for photos or supporting evidence? Is it because of the money readers have invested in the new RF 70-200 makes them more protective?

And stating that no evidence will be given, as if there are no reasons to not share photos (paid job?) on DPReview, then demands for evidence are doubled down?

Warning to those who don't love the RF lens, you will suffer consequences.

I don’t even own the lens yet. I decided to wait until it drops in price a little (I expect a 2-300 rebate by summer), and to give the production run enough time to even out in case the minimum focus issue was production related.

It’s a new lens, opinions on it are still being formulated, so it’s frustrating to see posts of little value and obviously wrong information get put out there.

OP has a gripe about the lens, then pushes further with a gripe that’s very clearly false... of course it’s going to get called out, and it should. It has nothing to do with an investment, it has to do with logic.

if OP was serious about a discussion, all he had to do was post side by side pics of his front yard, and we could have a meaningful conversation on subjective qualities of the lens, but he’s not interested in that... he’s interested in complaining... which hey he’s free to do, and we’re free to point it out.

I think his statement is opinion. He even says it is a subjective observation. It seems unprovable and not a lab spec provable fact. As unprovable as a feeling about the lens. Also, a thing that you can not say is clearly false.

You can only say that you have the opposite subjective observation or that others have the opposite observation. Not that it is clearly false.

I figure the lenses of this price level are all very capable and tend to be selected, or rejected, based on factors other than IQ. Factors such as IS, IS modes, focus range, construction, price, design of focus/zoom ring, camera bodies that can use it, etc.

I’m referring to his claim on the AF as blatantly false.  Of course his subjective opinion about the lens quality can be argued, I even suggest I might agree, but his subjective opinion is made to look less worthwhile when he makes a false claim about AF that’s so... well, clearly false.

PGSanta wrote:

I’m referring to his claim on the AF as blatantly false. Of course his subjective opinion about the lens quality can be argued, I even suggest I might agree, but his subjective opinion is made to look less worthwhile when he makes a false claim about AF that’s so... well, clearly false.

what is blatantly false about my experience with the AF?

BobNL wrote:

PGSanta wrote:

I’m referring to his claim on the AF as blatantly false. Of course his subjective opinion about the lens quality can be argued, I even suggest I might agree, but his subjective opinion is made to look less worthwhile when he makes a false claim about AF that’s so... well, clearly false.

what is blatantly false about my experience with the AF?

That the lens focuses slower than the EF.  It’s false, by a magnitude that makes it comical to anyone that’s actually used the lenses.

PGSanta wrote:

BobNL wrote:

PGSanta wrote:

I’m referring to his claim on the AF as blatantly false. Of course his subjective opinion about the lens quality can be argued, I even suggest I might agree, but his subjective opinion is made to look less worthwhile when he makes a false claim about AF that’s so... well, clearly false.

what is blatantly false about my experience with the AF?

That the lens focuses slower than the EF. It’s false, by a magnitude that makes it comical to anyone that’s actually used the lenses.

Never said that.

PGSanta wrote:

BobNL wrote:

PGSanta wrote:

I’m referring to his claim on the AF as blatantly false. Of course his subjective opinion about the lens quality can be argued, I even suggest I might agree, but his subjective opinion is made to look less worthwhile when he makes a false claim about AF that’s so... well, clearly false.

what is blatantly false about my experience with the AF?

That the lens focuses slower than the EF. It’s false, by a magnitude that makes it comical to anyone that’s actually used the lenses.

The OP gave his experience of the lens. Only he can know if that is true or otherwise, although I see no reason for him to lie. Anyone else is clearly unqualified to tell him, or anyone else, what his experience was. You, and others, may have had a different experience of the lens and by all means tell us about that as that would be something you do know about.

BobNL wrote:

PGSanta wrote:

BobNL wrote:

PGSanta wrote:

I’m referring to his claim on the AF as blatantly false. Of course his subjective opinion about the lens quality can be argued, I even suggest I might agree, but his subjective opinion is made to look less worthwhile when he makes a false claim about AF that’s so... well, clearly false.

what is blatantly false about my experience with the AF?

That the lens focuses slower than the EF. It’s false, by a magnitude that makes it comical to anyone that’s actually used the lenses.

Never said that.

You wrote:

“Secondly, the lens was slow to operate. Switching from one couple to another was taking up so much time. It took way too long until it focused on the next subject. As if it made a very smooth focus pull for video. And that is IF it immediately focused on the new subject. I often had to actuate the AF 2 of 3 times for it to properly focus. Causing me to miss unfortunately a lot of moments. I didn't have this problem with the EF version on the R.”

Anyhow, this thread wasn’t really worth much to begin with (without pics), so I’ll move on.

BobNL wrote:

Hi everybody,

I'm a dancesport (and event and concert) photographer based in Germany. Since November last year, most of my work has been done with the EOS R. About 90% of the time I use the 70-200 2.8 is used for dancesport. So I was pretty excited when Canon announced the 70-200 RF. But it was a long wait and expensive! Because of the high price I thought I'd better try it out first on a real-life situation so I rented it for a weekend to shoot the Goldstadtpokal in Germany.

In the 2 days before I tried the lens out around the house and was very impressed with the optical quality and the image stabilization. It is actually phenomenal in that regard. I also liked the size very much and already saw myself going out and about with a considerably smaller bag for my kit.

Unfortunately, under stress, the lens turned out not to be what I hoped for. The first big problem is the throw of the zoom ring. It's too long and stiff. With my EF version, I use my thumb to quickly go from 70 to 200 and back. This is not possible with RF, it slowed me down a lot. Causing me to miss moments and cutting off limbs way too often. I needed at least two throws and the stiffness didn't make it a pleasant experience.

Secondly, the lens was slow to operate. Switching from one couple to another was taking up so much time. It took way too long until it focused on the next subject. As if it made a very smooth focus pull for video. And that is IF it immediately focused on the new subject. I often had to actuate the AF 2 of 3 times for it to properly focus. Causing me to miss unfortunately a lot of moments. I didn't have this problem with the EF version on the R.

So will I buy the RF 70-200? No probably not. But maybe it was some user error, some set-up mistake. Was maybe this single lens not good? Anyone here with different experiences?

And as the last (personal) note; as good as the lens is technically, it is very neutral and therefore lacks some character. The files felt a bit emotionless.

I was in tears when I first put my hands on the beauty of a lens that is the 70-200mm rf. With the 15-35mm, they are the hands of god. Any criticism saying otherwise is blasphemy.