For about the same price..RF 70-200mm F/4 or EF 70-200mm 2.8 IS iii ?

Started 6 months ago | Questions
Paysen New Member • Posts: 18
Re: Not been an issue

That is not all theoretical, that is a fact though. It depends on your usecase, but if it sucks in air, it also sucks in moisture and small dust particles. Most of the lenses are not full of dust or moisture because they are used in "easy" conditions. You could take a shower (without soap though) with that EF 70-200 2.8 and it will still work like a charm - that doesn't mean that your RF 70-200 will be a dusty fungus lens soon. It just means that the EF 70-200 is better sealed by design.

tkbslc Forum Pro • Posts: 17,209
Re: Not been an issue
3

Paysen wrote:

That is not all theoretical, that is a fact though.

If it was a fact, it would be verifiable through testing. Where are your tests showing that dust is a problem? Where are these dust-filled lenses?  As I have said, the experience seems to show that it is not a serious concern.

Paysen New Member • Posts: 18
Re: Not been an issue

That is a given since it is built that way. It literally breathes air, which has humidity by default. And I never said every lens is going to be full of dust or water droplets I said it is more prone to getting dust and humidity inside of the lens and that is simply a fact. Because a gasket on an internal zoom and focus lens has a way easier job at sealing the internals of your lens. Proving basic physics is a stupid thing to ask for, sorry. There is a difference between "it is more likely that dust and humidity will find it's way into the lens" and "it will end up being full of dust and water".

If it was a weather sealed Olympus lens I would be more confident though, as we don't really know how "weather sealed" the lens really is, as Canon doesn't really tell what it means.

Olympus for example has some crazy good weather sealing (they even call it hermetic sealing), and they even show you how it works:

You can see it here:

https://asia.olympus-imaging.com/product/dslr/mlens/7-14_28pro/feature.html

But the zoom of that lens is also internal.

And again: I am not saying that it is a bad lens or that it will be full of dust soon, it is just more likely compared to the EF variant. By how much? That is up for discussion, but as Canon doesn't share the information, we would have to rely on someone who is repairing those lenses.

PicPocket Veteran Member • Posts: 5,087
Re: Not been an issue
1

So where are the tests or data supporting this? You are throwing more theory when asked for tests. Do the 2 external zooms mentioned in previous post fare worse than the internal one? Where is the evidence for that? What Olympus does is not relevant to answering that specific question of how capable a well built extending lens is

Weather sealed lenses aren't airtight, and that is also a fact

-- hide signature --
 PicPocket's gear list:PicPocket's gear list
Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM Sigma 135mm F1.8 Art Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1L IS USM +13 more
thunder storm Senior Member • Posts: 8,579
Re: For about the same price..RF 70-200mm F/4 or EF 70-200mm 2.8 IS iii ?

Luis Gabriel Photography wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Yes, it's the same for me, but when trying to find explanations for price points on the used marked preferences of other customers should be considered as well.

Yes in that case it makes sense as well as brand names.
I remember having such much issues selling Tamron lenses before even when they were as good or in cases better than the Canon ones.

That's the reason I buy my third party glass used.  The price get's significantly lower as it doesn't have the brand name. It also prevents me from loosing a lot when I want to resell it.

-- hide signature --

I love 50mm (equivalence)

 thunder storm's gear list:thunder storm's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF 35-80mm f/4.0-5.6 III +20 more
Shaun_Nyc
Shaun_Nyc Senior Member • Posts: 2,329
Re: For about the same price..RF 70-200mm F/4 or EF 70-200mm 2.8 IS iii ?
2

Luis Gabriel Photography wrote:

This one got me a bit confused...on the one hand I l like fast lenses (I shoot primarily with a Sigma 105mm 1.4) but on the other hand, this lens will be used mostly in the studio for the flexibility of that focal range.

Size is nice on the RF of course but not a big deal in my case as if I wanted to use it outdoors like for some event, I will rather be using the 2.8
That is where my confusion is. They can be found around the same price in the used market (the RF F4 and the EF 2.8 version 3).
I guess the main issue is that I experienced focusing issues with the EF 70-200mm mark II version and the R5 where my other lenses all pretty much never miss (all 3 are Sigma lenses).
So that makes me want to go with the RF but that F/4 still bothers me even for my usage. And of course, the 2.8 RF version I just feel is too expensive, and not happy with the focus breathing making it 200mm shorter (although it does focus closer than most).
I am usually very clear about what lens I need but this one got me second-guessing.
Anyone has compared both?

I would take either EF 2.8 III or F4 II over their plastic dust sucker counterparts. Yea I really don't care that both RF offerings collapse smaller for storage lulz I also think the RF lens will not hold up compared to the EF L build quality.

 Shaun_Nyc's gear list:Shaun_Nyc's gear list
Nikon D50 Nikon D810 Canon EOS R6 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +15 more
Sittatunga Veteran Member • Posts: 4,249
For Example
2

Shaun_Nyc wrote:

I would take either EF 2.8 III or F4 II over their plastic dust sucker counterparts. Yea I really don't care that both RF offerings collapse smaller for storage lulz I also think the RF lens will not hold up compared to the EF L build quality.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/12/the-not-very-long-awaited-teardown-of-the-canon-rf-70-200mm-f2-8-is/

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/page/2/?s=70-200

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/04/removing-fly-from-weather-sealed-canon-70-200mm/

John Crowe
John Crowe Senior Member • Posts: 2,310
Re: For about the same price..RF 70-200mm F/4 or EF 70-200mm 2.8 IS iii ?

From all of my research using EF lenses on RF bodies is seamless.  Others here have already noted that.

Before making an expensive switch I would spend more time evaluating your current Canon lens.

To me, if you really don't care about weight then one of the f2.8 lenses is the way to go.  If you are considering the RF f4, then also consider the EF f4 (any version).

Depending on the most focal lengths used with your zoom, you could replace it with a used EF 135/2 L and EF 200/2.8 L for maximum image quality and speed.

 John Crowe's gear list:John Crowe's gear list
Canon EOS 5DS R Canon EF 70-200mm F4L USM Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Kenko Teleplus Pro 300 AF 1.4x Venus Laowa 12mm F2.8 Zero-D +15 more
Shaun_Nyc
Shaun_Nyc Senior Member • Posts: 2,329
Re: For Example

Sittatunga wrote:

Shaun_Nyc wrote:

I would take either EF 2.8 III or F4 II over their plastic dust sucker counterparts. Yea I really don't care that both RF offerings collapse smaller for storage lulz I also think the RF lens will not hold up compared to the EF L build quality.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/12/the-not-very-long-awaited-teardown-of-the-canon-rf-70-200mm-f2-8-is/

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/page/2/?s=70-200

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/04/removing-fly-from-weather-sealed-canon-70-200mm/

Environmental filters up the wazoo to compensate for this poor design, we already knew this. I think these poly carbonate lens bodies & lens barrels are going to age terribly and look like hell in short order. Users are scratching them w their finger nails by accident .

As far as practical reasons for sports ?

 Shaun_Nyc's gear list:Shaun_Nyc's gear list
Nikon D50 Nikon D810 Canon EOS R6 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +15 more
tkbslc Forum Pro • Posts: 17,209
Re: For Example
2

Shaun_Nyc wrote:

Sittatunga wrote:

Shaun_Nyc wrote:

I would take either EF 2.8 III or F4 II over their plastic dust sucker counterparts. Yea I really don't care that both RF offerings collapse smaller for storage lulz I also think the RF lens will not hold up compared to the EF L build quality.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/12/the-not-very-long-awaited-teardown-of-the-canon-rf-70-200mm-f2-8-is/

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/page/2/?s=70-200

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/04/removing-fly-from-weather-sealed-canon-70-200mm/

Environmental filters up the wazoo to compensate for this poor design, we already knew this. I think these poly carbonate lens bodies & lens barrels are going to age terribly and look like hell in short order. Users are scratching them w their finger nails by accident .

As far as practical reasons for sports ?

We have 30+ years of Canon zoom lenses that extend when zooming or focusing.  The 70-200mm models are literally the only ones that do not.  How come nobody calls the 24-105L or the 70-300L "dust suckers" or proclaim that they are fragile?

Sittatunga Veteran Member • Posts: 4,249
Re: For Example

Shaun_Nyc wrote:

Sittatunga wrote:

Shaun_Nyc wrote:

I would take either EF 2.8 III or F4 II over their plastic dust sucker counterparts. Yea I really don't care that both RF offerings collapse smaller for storage lulz I also think the RF lens will not hold up compared to the EF L build quality.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/12/the-not-very-long-awaited-teardown-of-the-canon-rf-70-200mm-f2-8-is/

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/page/2/?s=70-200

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/04/removing-fly-from-weather-sealed-canon-70-200mm/

Environmental filters up the wazoo to compensate for this poor design, we already knew this. I think these poly carbonate lens bodies & lens barrels are going to age terribly and look like hell in short order. Users are scratching them w their finger nails by accident .

An oldy, but a goody.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/12/assumptions-expectations-and-plastic-mounts/

As far as practical reasons for sports ?

Sorry, I didn't have the attention span to watch a six minute video.   Can you summarise what he said?

tkbslc Forum Pro • Posts: 17,209
Re: Not been an issue

Paysen wrote:

That is a given since it is built that way. It literally breathes air, which has humidity by default.

I hate to break it to you, but the EF versions are not vacuum sealed.

And I never said every lens is going to be full of dust or water droplets I said it is more prone to getting dust and humidity inside of the lens and that is simply a fact. Because a gasket on an internal zoom and focus lens has a way easier job at sealing the internals of your lens. Proving basic physics is a stupid thing to ask for, sorry. There is a difference between "it is more likely that dust and humidity will find it's way into the lens" and "it will end up being full of dust and water".

So if you are NOT implying that it will be filled with dust and moisture, then what are you suggesting?  What is the point you are making?    Again, like I said above, this is back to theory.    You are saying on paper it should move more air so you jump to conclusions.  But these lenses are not just two cardboard tubes loosely sliding together.  It's got complex seals and brushes to keep dust out. The parts fit tightly.   As I said, we've had a long experience with similarly designed lenses like the EF 70-300L.

Shaun_Nyc
Shaun_Nyc Senior Member • Posts: 2,329
Re: For Example

Sittatunga wrote:

Shaun_Nyc wrote:

Sittatunga wrote:

Shaun_Nyc wrote:

I would take either EF 2.8 III or F4 II over their plastic dust sucker counterparts. Yea I really don't care that both RF offerings collapse smaller for storage lulz I also think the RF lens will not hold up compared to the EF L build quality.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/12/the-not-very-long-awaited-teardown-of-the-canon-rf-70-200mm-f2-8-is/

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/page/2/?s=70-200

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/04/removing-fly-from-weather-sealed-canon-70-200mm/

Environmental filters up the wazoo to compensate for this poor design, we already knew this. I think these poly carbonate lens bodies & lens barrels are going to age terribly and look like hell in short order. Users are scratching them w their finger nails by accident .

An oldy, but a goody.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/12/assumptions-expectations-and-plastic-mounts/

As far as practical reasons for sports ?

Sorry, I didn't have the attention span to watch a six minute video. Can you summarise what he said?

If you're buying gear to look at and talk about on dpr I wouldn't bother w the video.

 Shaun_Nyc's gear list:Shaun_Nyc's gear list
Nikon D50 Nikon D810 Canon EOS R6 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +15 more
ZX11
ZX11 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,746
wasting time

You are wasting time. Some people here don't care about the lens pumping air and whatnot in and out. So far (two years of use) there hasn't been a lot of people having problems with it.

I bought the EF version somewhat because it was an internal design, known to be durable, and cheaper. The RF version didn't impress me. The RF 85mm f1.2 did impress me so I spent the money on it.

There is someone on the forum with a RF 70-200 f2.8 with fungus inside it on the elements. Not sure where it is.

-- 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 50mm F1.4 USM 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 +1 more
tkbslc Forum Pro • Posts: 17,209
Re: For Example
2

Sittatunga wrote:

Sorry, I didn't have the attention span to watch a six minute video. Can you summarise what he said?

He didn't like that the zoom throw was longer and firmer on the RF version which made it harder to track and follow athletes,  and he couldn't tell any difference in pictures, so he decided to save some money.

I also couldn't tell much difference in pictures going from EF f4 to RF f4.   But the lens is literally half the size vs the EF on adapter, so I bring it along twice as often.  A lens that I used twice as often is worth more money to me.   (Or so I tell myself to justify the lens costing so much more than EF.)

Truth be told, the EF versions are awesome.   Especially the most recent versions.  There is no way that you couldn't be satisfied with the performance.  So it really comes down to if you want to pay extra for a much shorter lens that doesn't need an adapter.

ZX11
ZX11 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,746
Re: Not been an issue

tkbslc wrote:

Paysen wrote:

That is a given since it is built that way. It literally breathes air, which has humidity by default.

I hate to break it to you, but the EF versions are not vacuum sealed.

Strawman.  Not what was claimed.

If you are claiming that the EF version pumps as much air, humidity, and dust, from the outside into it's interior as the RF version, I hate to break it to you,...

People have reason to question the reliability of a RF extending design being more reliable and durable than the EF internal design.  After a few years we will know for sure.  By that time the RF versions will be discounted and easier to buy.

My theory is that people who don't care about the extending design, would be changing the RF lens for the next version of it (RF 70-200 mkII), or to a Sony system, in two years anyway.  Extending is durable enough for them.

-- 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 50mm F1.4 USM 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 +1 more
Sittatunga Veteran Member • Posts: 4,249
Re: For Example
1

tkbslc wrote:

Sittatunga wrote:

Sorry, I didn't have the attention span to watch a six minute video. Can you summarise what he said?

He didn't like that the zoom throw was longer and firmer on the RF version which made it harder to track and follow athletes, and he couldn't tell any difference in pictures, so he decided to save some money.

I also couldn't tell much difference in pictures going from EF f4 to RF f4. But the lens is literally half the size vs the EF on adapter, so I bring it along twice as often. A lens that I used twice as often is worth more money to me. (Or so I tell myself to justify the lens costing so much more than EF.)

Truth be told, the EF versions are awesome. Especially the most recent versions. There is no way that you couldn't be satisfied with the performance. So it really comes down to if you want to pay extra for a much shorter lens that doesn't need an adapter.

Thanks, that was useful.

ZX11
ZX11 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,746
Re: For Example

tkbslc wrote:

We have 30+ years of Canon zoom lenses that extend when zooming or focusing. The 70-200mm models are literally the only ones that do not. How come nobody calls the 24-105L or the 70-300L "dust suckers" or proclaim that they are fragile?

Good point.  They haven't had huge problems and people live with what dust they get in them.  I'll have to look at my RF 24-105.  Not that dust would bother my photos.  I accept in some lenses (all?) dust after years of use is nature of the beast.

It isn't that it is fragile.  Just lesser in that way and more expensive than the EF internal zoom versions.  A RF 24-105L is a dust sucker compared to the RF 24-105 all internal zoom version.  If there was a version.

If I had a choice of a EF 24-105L all internal zoom that was cheaper and just as optically good, I would have chose it.

-- 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 50mm F1.4 USM 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 +1 more
PicPocket Veteran Member • Posts: 5,087
Re: Not been an issue

ZX11 wrote:

tkbslc wrote:

Paysen wrote:

That is a given since it is built that way. It literally breathes air, which has humidity by default.

I hate to break it to you, but the EF versions are not vacuum sealed.

Strawman. Not what was claimed.

Read the quoted part above. As far as i can tell, both lenses breathe air. The reason - because neither are air sealed

If you are claiming that the EF version pumps as much air, humidity, and dust, from the outside into it's interior as the RF version, I hate to break it to you,...

... that you have a hypothesis, but no reason to really tell one way or other?

People have reason to question the reliability of a RF extending design being more reliable and durable than the EF internal design. After a few years we will know for sure. By that time the RF versions will be discounted and easier to buy.

There have been both internal and external zoom EF lenses. And they have been around for a long time. Why don't we know for sure yet then? What is the basis of this reason to question the reliability?

My theory is that people who don't care about the extending design, would be changing the RF lens for the next version of it (RF 70-200 mkII), or to a Sony system, in two years anyway. Extending is durable enough for them.

Which is the real point. A well built lens, whether internal or external zoom works very well for its intended use case. What is the reason to care about this without any specific evidence of a problem that actually affects its performance?

-- hide signature --
 PicPocket's gear list:PicPocket's gear list
Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM Sigma 135mm F1.8 Art Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1L IS USM +13 more
Shaun_Nyc
Shaun_Nyc Senior Member • Posts: 2,329
Re: For Example

tkbslc wrote:

Sittatunga wrote:

Sorry, I didn't have the attention span to watch a six minute video. Can you summarise what he said?

He didn't like that the zoom throw was longer and firmer on the RF version which made it harder to track and follow athletes, and he couldn't tell any difference in pictures, so he decided to save some money.

I also couldn't tell much difference in pictures going from EF f4 to RF f4. But the lens is literally half the size vs the EF on adapter, so I bring it along twice as often. A lens that I used twice as often is worth more money to me. (Or so I tell myself to justify the lens costing so much more than EF.)

Truth be told, the EF versions are awesome. Especially the most recent versions. There is no way that you couldn't be satisfied with the performance. So it really comes down to if you want to pay extra for a much shorter lens that doesn't need an adapter.

Well its zoom is longer because its geared down to move all that mass of barrel & glass. And its still not finger tip control ez. No doubt both (f2.8/F4) EF 70-200  last versions are beautiful. They are on par performance wize w the RF versions through an adapter. We will never know how good the last EF versions were with an RF mount. Makes me think of the Nikon 70-200 Z . Ahhh progress

 Shaun_Nyc's gear list:Shaun_Nyc's gear list
Nikon D50 Nikon D810 Canon EOS R6 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +15 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads