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

KEG wrote:

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.

If R7 becomes a reality then that one will be able to use the EF-S 55-250 stm also

Ive owned several 70-200 2.8 from different brands. 
i did not get much out of them for general shooting because of the size. With rf70-200 f4 It is as good as my daily lens. Small light fast and great image.

Bokeh? its a telephoto lens. It wipes the background.

From what you write it is clear you are an experienced photographer. So you should be able to decide if f/2.8 is a must for you or not. If you shoot mainly in studio with controlled lightning, I think the f/4 might not be a problem.

I am surprised about your AF issues with EF 70-200/2.8 III on R5. I have version II of this lens on R6 and it focuses perfectly with much bigger hit rate than it did on 5D mk III.

Edit: now I noticed the original post I replied on is 6 months old .

Roman Dreyer wrote:

I would love to have a bigger size and more weight and have that useless extra background blur, useless extra smoothness in bokeh quality, that useless extra light or useless doubling of my shutter speed.

I hate a light weight wallet, that's the only disadvantage of the f/2.8 for me.

Unless you have specific photo needs,

If a need is specific and if a preference is a need is pretty boring semantics.  I know my preference:  f/2.8.  My used Sigma Sports is 2.5 times the weight, but the RF f/4.0 costs 2.5 times more, while the Sigma gives me twice the light.

thunder storm:

very well put.

Before I bought my first 70-200, I spent literally weeks by evaluating if I should take the f/4 or f/2.8 version. I could not make my mind so I borrowed each of them for a weekend. f/4 for the first, f/2.8 for the second.

I was very happy shooting with the f/4 version. Results were awsome, I was amazed by the lens and almost I was decided to buy it.

But luckily I gave the f/2.8 a chance and from the first shot I did review on the PC I knew I will go with f2.8. There is something into it with fast lenses and I love it .

So I am keeping my EF 70-200/2.8 II and not changing it for the RF. RF/4 is not an option for me as I mention above. And RF/2.8 is too expensive for me for what it would add to me compared with my EF 70-200.