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

Looks like youve already made up your mind before posting . Do what you desire

ZX11 wrote:

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.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65475829

There you go. How can that dust & mold ended up on the back of the front element where there are multi sealing inside the lens barrel behind the front element as shown below? Super ninja nasty dust!

I use the RF 70-200 f4 on my R6 and LOVE it, its a pleasure to use, the focus is dead on and very fast.

Last year if someone ask if I ever saw/used a lens/body that never missed focus I would of said NO, but with with the 70-200mm f4 on my R6 the answer is yes**   The hood now that I do not really care for the size.

I dont use it a lot, only special events,  most of the time I will use my ef16-35 f4/ rf 24-240/ rf 100-400.

Sinawang wrote:

ZX11 wrote:

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.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65475829

There you go. How can that dust & mold ended up on the back of the front element where there are multi sealing inside the lens barrel behind the front element as shown below? Super ninja nasty dust!

For the purpose of discussion in this thread, the internal zooming EF versions compete fairly well - https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1517059

people seem to start assuming what the weather sealing does and does not do… but, as as been said before, those red rings aren’t airtight, or microbes proof. Water drops are not at same scale as humid air

My RF 70-200 2.8 is my favourite lens, preferred over my 100-500 and others, I'm sure the F4 is just as good.

The EF versions were wonderful too, however I do prefer the RF for reasons already mentioned by others.

Dust pumps? I've never had any such issues with a 100-400 in the past and I live in a warm country where dust on the trails is a thing - been on many safaris in Africa, never any dust in the lens. I accept the potential vulnerability but...not at all fussed by it.

Sittatunga wrote:

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/

Read the links, the last on is AWESOME

Thank you Sittatunga

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?

f/2.8 by a mile.

It's saved me so many times in critical lighting situations where you just can't push your ISO without noise and get your shutter speed where you need to freeze motion.

I'm exactly at the same point!

I have EF 70-200 2.8 III. This is a really great lens!

But, I began to look on the RF 70-200 f/4.

Main reason - weight and size. Looks like a big difference.

Second reason, I think EF lenses will decline eventually and it is better to sell them when they worth the most.

Regarding the F - I was surprised how there is a little difference between f/2.8 image and f/4 image bokeh. sometimes barely noticable and even then only in comparison.

The hurting point is not the bokeh actually, but the speed or noise. If I switch from f/2.8 to f/4, I have either to slow shutter twice, or to raise ISO twice. Now if you shoot action or sport, you can't lower the shutter, so you raise the ISO, eventually getting more noisier images. Now noise doesn't scare me that much. But if I have the option to have it less...

So This is really 50/50 question for me.

For now, while I'm thinking about it, I'm staing with the EF 2.8

Roman Dreyer wrote:

Second reason, I think EF lenses will decline eventually and it is better to sell them when they worth the most.

If you believe in rational free markets, then future obsolescence should already be priced in, and that should not affect your decision.

On the original question, I would not acquire an EF lens to adapt to RF, without a really good reason. For example, you might want the extra sharpness and lower cost of an EF600/4 II vs. the RF version of the III. But you would be giving up the improved AF and IS of RF. There may be specific tradeoffs in the various 70-200 options, but in general get an RF version for the improved AF & IS.

If you already have the EF lens, then you may as well continue to use it, unless there is sufficient benefit to cover the conversion cost.

I had the EF 70-200 2.8L ii, and traded it for the RF 70-200 f4.0L and never have regretted it. The RF is so much lighter and compact and has at least as good IQ as the 2.8L. The slower aperture has never been an issue. I might be shooting at a higher ISO but with the RP I can get great results all the way to ISO 6400.

A couple of pictures of two of our dogs.

Bon Bon

Dragonfly

SteveinLouisville wrote:

I had the EF 70-200 2.8L ii, and traded it for the RF 70-200 f4.0L and never have regretted it. The RF is so much lighter and compact and has at least as good IQ as the 2.8L. The slower aperture has never been an issue. I might be shooting at a higher ISO but with the RP I can get great results all the way to ISO 6400.

You are basically summing up the reasons why I got 70-300L.

I have the R5 with the RF70-200f2.8 L IS and if there is enough light and room I also have the EF70-300f4-5.6L IS which has more reach and has great sharp IQ corner to corner.   It is overlooked by a lot of shooters but IMHO it is an amazing rendering lens. You need the right tool many different jobs.

RDM5546 wrote:

I have the R5 with the RF70-200f2.8 L IS and if there is enough light and room I also have the EF70-300f4-5.6L IS which has more reach and has great sharp IQ corner to corner. It is overlooked by a lot of shooters but IMHO it is an amazing rendering lens. You need the right tool many different jobs.

Amazing piece of hardware that one.

Hoka Hey wrote:

When was the last time you tested the EF 70-200 f/2.8 ii on the R5? FW updates may have fixed those issues. I recently tested it on the R3 with the 2xiii TC and got better results than I expected. I hadn’t used it in a long time since it was very slow focusing on the original R with early firmware.

It’s very fast focusing on my R. I used it recently for a local 5K, and it kept up with the fastest runners easily. That’s with the latest firmware on the R.

(It’s not a focal length that I have needed and n a few years.) I guess I should put it on the R5 and see what happens now, but won’t get to it during the holidays.

-- hide signature --

Joe

Seeing your post I decided to have a google for secondhand MKIII 70-200 f2.8.

Sadly there doesn’t seem to be any available at what I would consider a reasonable price :((

I also looked at the price for a EF f4 MKII and similarly none at a price I think was reasonable.

I did see I could get a new RF 70-200 f4 for nearly the same price as a new EF 70-200 f4 MKII and even some ‘mint’ secondhand ones.

So on those results I’ll probably go for the RF f4.

As regards sucking dust, I had the original EF 100-400 MKI, the trombone. People were saying there would be dire consequences as regards dust. I had that lens for some time and never suffered any significant dust problems.

Any lens which has a moving mass inside whether moving totally internal or externally air will be moved.

Travel on any underground system and you can feel for yourself, that even a poorly fitting piston will move air quite effectively.

Bigger wrote:

Roman Dreyer wrote:

Second reason, I think EF lenses will decline eventually and it is better to sell them when they worth the most.

If you believe in rational free markets, then future obsolescence should already be priced in, and that should not affect your decision.

On the original question, I would not acquire an EF lens to adapt to RF, without a really good reason.

I bought my 70-300L this spring for the following reasons:

1. works with my Rs and Ms
2. I own the EF-RF control adapter
3. covers bigger focal range than 70-200L f/4 and is only 2/3 of a stop slower at 200 mm (f/5)

It is also much faster than 100-400 and weatherproofed.

For example, you might want the extra sharpness and lower cost of an EF600/4 II vs. the RF version of the III. But you would be giving up the improved AF and IS of RF. There may be specific tradeoffs in the various 70-200 options, but in general get an RF version for the improved AF & IS.

If you already have the EF lens, then you may as well continue to use it, unless there is sufficient benefit to cover the conversion cost.

I did just that! I had EF 70-200 f/2.8 III IS, took the courage and changed to RF 70-200 f/4.

I was so afraid about the bokeh, and everything that is related to the F/2.8 vs F/4.

Now I can tell my experience. RF f/4 is AWESOME!

why:

- weight - this is not a joke. 1kg is significant! when you travel walking all day for a week on a trip or vacation. It is significant! Don't say "my equipment is anyway several kg, one more or less won't change much" - it does change.

- size - many claimed that size is irrelevant because at 200mm both are the same length. Right, but! in storage, it is the size of a wide lens and this is a deal breaker! suddenly MANY MANY photo bags that don't fit EF 70-200 fit RF 70-200. You begin to see the flexibility you gain with bags and packing. Very important for photographers on the way. i.e. not studio.

- boke - I researched A LOT the web for 2.8 vs 4 and I can tell you, you never noticed how much the 2.8 is too much or useless. When you shoot faces, group of people, or just any object - 2.8 is usually too shallow depth and you want to close the aperture to include the whole object. you want to have the nose in focus when you aim for the eye etc...

- light - yes, you get one stop less light with f/4. But how much you shoot in the dark? most of my photos are with sufficient light. Don't forget, this is a specific tele lens. Not your default wide like 24-105. So how much special stuff do you shoot at dark? If you do a lot, yes, consider the 2.8.

But with my R5, there is enough tools to compensate that light stop. like IS, good noise handling and so on.

So, now I enjoy a small, light (weight wise) lens. I have more carry options. My belt does not bend carrying RF 70-200 F/4 pouch. I got back to use my old photo bag. My back does not hurt to carry my photo back pack.

Unless you have specific photo needs, take the that RF f/4 and enjoy photo, travel and life!