RF 70-200 f/2.8 vs 4.0 decisions decisions!

I must have watched a dozen videos comparing these two lenses and I'm still struggling on which one to get to replace my EF 70-200 f/4 (non-IS).

From the comparisons I've seen, unless you're REALLY pixel peeping, the IQ on these two lenses is very comparable. Maybe a very slight edge to the 2.8 stopped to f4 compared to the f4 at f/4, mainly on the wide end (70mm). Most viewers are never going to notice a difference.

Points in favor of the f2.8: Obviously it's a full stop brighter than the f/4, which means better subject/background separation and bokeh. However, the f/4 isn't bad and the differences become less noticeable the more you zoom in.

The f2.8 would do better in indoor situations with poor lighting (such as our annual rodeo). However, the R5's ISO performance and today's noise reduction software like Topaz might make this a wash.

Points in favor of the f/4.0 version: The biggest difference of course is price. For the price of the f/2.8 I could buy the f/4.0 AND the 100mm f/2.8 macro lens.

The f/4.0 version would be much better for hiking and walking around town since it is lighter by almost a full pound.

Since I would be using this lens 80% of the time for landscapes, and only occasionally on portraits of family and friends (none professionally), or doing indoor events, I probably wouldn't need that extra stop very often. I'm thinking paying an extra $1000 for something that would be heavier to hike with and which I wouldn't really need very often, probably wouldn't be the best choice for me.

I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't love to have that 2.8 beast just because I know what a great lens it would be, but in the long run, given my shooting requirements, I'm thinking it makes more sense (for me) at this time to consider that smaller, lighter f/4.0 version and put the difference into something like that 100mm Macro lens. My heart says go for broke and get the 2.8, but my head says go for the f/4.

Anyone else having this same sort of struggle either with these two lenses or other lenses?

pawn wrote:

Basil Fawlty wrote:

I must have watched a dozen videos comparing these two lenses and I'm still struggling on which one to get to replace my EF 70-200 f/4 (non-IS).

From the comparisons I've seen, unless you're REALLY pixel peeping, the IQ on these two lenses is very comparable. Maybe a very slight edge to the 2.8 stopped to f4 compared to the f4 at f/4, mainly on the wide end (70mm). Most viewers are never going to notice a difference.

Points in favor of the f2.8: Obviously it's a full stop brighter than the f/4, which means better subject/background separation and bokeh. However, the f/4 isn't bad and the differences become less noticeable the more you zoom in.

The f2.8 would do better in indoor situations with poor lighting (such as our annual rodeo). However, the R5's ISO performance and today's noise reduction software like Topaz might make this a wash.

Points in favor of the f/4.0 version: The biggest difference of course is price. For the price of the f/2.8 I could buy the f/4.0 AND the 100mm f/2.8 macro lens.

The f/4.0 version would be much better for hiking and walking around town since it is lighter by almost a full pound.

Since I would be using this lens 80% of the time for landscapes, and only occasionally on portraits of family and friends (none professionally), or doing indoor events, I probably wouldn't need that extra stop very often. I'm thinking paying an extra $1000 for something that would be heavier to hike with and which I wouldn't really need very often, probably wouldn't be the best choice for me.

I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't love to have that 2.8 beast just because I know what a great lens it would be, but in the long run, given my shooting requirements, I'm thinking it makes more sense (for me) at this time to consider that smaller, lighter f/4.0 version and put the difference into something like that 100mm Macro lens. My heart says go for broke and get the 2.8, but my head says go for the f/4.

Anyone else having this same sort of struggle either with these two lenses or other lenses?

I do landscape but do have the 2.8 version. Only you can decide what is best for you. Why not try them out at a store and decide?

Unfortunately the last decent camera store in my area closed its doors years ago because they could not compete with the online stores.  I know I'm the only one who can decide for me, but I still like to hear other people's opinions and reasons for getting what they got.

pawn wrote:

I had EF 70-200mm f/4. When it died (after may years of use), I switched to RF 2.8 version. I knew that I would use it for sports as well in the future. That is why I went with 2.8 instead of 4.0

Your rationale makes sense for what you shoot.  I'm still on the fence but leaning towards the f4.  But I've been known to change my mind! LOL

I was undergoing this exact decision long years back. And went for f/2.8. Never did regret that decision and many times did appreciate it.

I know myself and I was sure that if I went for the f/4 I would still and forever have in the back of my mind that I should have gone for the brighter one.

It was more expensive but once you spend some money you just forget about them.

The bigger size and weight might be also evaluated but for me personally this is fairly low in an importance list (and 70-200/2.8 by far isn't my heaviest lens). And especially when you plan hiking for some landscapes the weight is unimportant (in my perception). During the hike you have the camera in the backpack where you do not recognize having 200g more or less. Once you reach the spot you place the camera on a tripod.

And if you write that your heart leans towards f/2.8 then you know what you should do . Allow yourself what you wish for. We live once and photography is about feelings and passion.

Basil Fawlty wrote:

Anyone else having this same sort of struggle either with these two lenses or other lenses?

I've had exactly the same problem.

The size advantage for hiking and traveling won. I've bought some month ago f/4 version, and I'm much more than happy.

The IQ is stellar, the lens is unbelievably compact and already had become (with 14-35) my favorite travel lens.

Im not into portraits so f/2.8 was not anything I really need.

Br, Paweł.

For my landscape panos I bought the 70-200/2.8 in 2019. The 4.0 wasn't yet available otherwise I'd have preferred this one due to size, weight and price.

On the other hand the 2.8 is somewhat sharper, mainly in the corners, even if you compare it to the 4.0 set to 5.6. So the resolution in the overlapping zones of the single pictures of a pano will not be reduced. Of ourse that's for pixel peepers only - but I am one when mounting large panos.

Basil Fawlty wrote:

I must have watched a dozen videos comparing these two lenses and I'm still struggling on which one to get to replace my EF 70-200 f/4 (non-IS).

From the comparisons I've seen, unless you're REALLY pixel peeping, the IQ on these two lenses is very comparable. Maybe a very slight edge to the 2.8 stopped to f4 compared to the f4 at f/4, mainly on the wide end (70mm). Most viewers are never going to notice a difference.

Points in favor of the f2.8: Obviously it's a full stop brighter than the f/4, which means better subject/background separation and bokeh. However, the f/4 isn't bad and the differences become less noticeable the more you zoom in.

The f2.8 would do better in indoor situations with poor lighting (such as our annual rodeo). However, the R5's ISO performance and today's noise reduction software like Topaz might make this a wash.

Points in favor of the f/4.0 version: The biggest difference of course is price. For the price of the f/2.8 I could buy the f/4.0 AND the 100mm f/2.8 macro lens.

The f/4.0 version would be much better for hiking and walking around town since it is lighter by almost a full pound.

Since I would be using this lens 80% of the time for landscapes, and only occasionally on portraits of family and friends (none professionally), or doing indoor events, I probably wouldn't need that extra stop very often. I'm thinking paying an extra $1000 for something that would be heavier to hike with and which I wouldn't really need very often, probably wouldn't be the best choice for me.

I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't love to have that 2.8 beast just because I know what a great lens it would be, but in the long run, given my shooting requirements, I'm thinking it makes more sense (for me) at this time to consider that smaller, lighter f/4.0 version and put the difference into something like that 100mm Macro lens. My heart says go for broke and get the 2.8, but my head says go for the f/4.

Anyone else having this same sort of struggle either with these two lenses or other lenses?

All I can say is that the RF 70-200 f4 version is an awesome lens on my R5. Coming from the EF 70-200/4 IS L it was the obvious choice, and I would not have even considered the 2.8 as I have no need for the wider aperture, nor would I appreciate the additional weight. The f4 is almost exactly the same dimensions as the RF 24-105/4 L and so the two work well together, plus with the 14-35/4 L I have an ideal FF travel setup. So no, I didn’t struggle with the choice.

Personally I already had the EF100/2.8 L macro so don’t need the RF version, plus I don’t need or want the SA control, which seems completely pointless to me. I would spend the difference on a trip to take photographs, not another lens…

1. JoWinter wrote:

Basil Fawlty wrote:

pawn wrote:

I had EF 70-200mm f/4. When it died (after may years of use), I switched to RF 2.8 version. I knew that I would use it for sports as well in the future. That is why I went with 2.8 instead of 4.0

Your rationale makes sense for what you shoot. I'm still on the fence but leaning towards the f4. But I've been known to change my mind! LOL

Why don't you ask Sybil Fawlty, who is your "little kommandant" anyway?

(Apologies to those who don't know the origin of this poster's nickname.)

“Don’t mention the war!!”

Suggest mint condition used from dealer with warranty - EF 70-200 2.8 IS II.

Brilliant optically and takes extenders too and length unchanged on zooming.

Big cost saving and only significant penalty is takes up more space in bag.  And you could buy lots of fun stuff with saving.

f/4 versions are a bit boring IMHO - other than pixel peeping not much advantage over the far more versatile 24-240 superzoom.

KevinRA wrote:

Suggest mint condition used from dealer with warranty - EF 70-200 2.8 IS II.

Brilliant optically and takes extenders too and length unchanged on zooming.

Big cost saving and only significant penalty is takes up more space in bag.

And weighs quite a lot more.

And you could buy lots of fun stuff with saving.

f/4 versions are a bit boring IMHO - other than pixel peeping not much advantage over the far more versatile 24-240 superzoom.

I had the EF 70-200 F2.8 IS II for years, and got great use out of it. I recently sold it and got the RF 70-200 F2.8. Optically, they are very close, with the RF being maybe just a bit better (but both are excellent). I love the size and weight savings of the RF version, though. If the OP is considering the RF F4 version over the RF F2.8 version, partly on weight and size considerations, the EF version is going in the wrong direction. The difference in weight between the RF F2.8 and EF F2.8 is bigger than between the two RF versions. And the difference in size between the RF and EF versions, especially when you factor in the adapter (which also adds weight) is quite a lot. The EF version, with adapter, is over 50% longer than the RF version.

Basil Fawlty wrote:

I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't love to have that 2.8 beast just because I know what a great lens it would be, but in the long run, given my shooting requirements, I'm thinking it makes more sense (for me) at this time to consider that smaller, lighter f/4.0 version and put the difference into something like that 100mm Macro lens.

This is what I did using the same logic.

I have the RF 70-200 f/4, which is a great lens for what I do, landscapes, like you apparently.  It is almost the same size as my RF 24-104 f/4 and RF 14-35 f/4, so the three together make a great landscape kit.

Back in the EF days, I bought the EF 70-200 f/2.8 and used that for years doing primarily railroad photography.  After 15 or so years with that lens, I got the EF 70-200 f/4 IS lens, and after that seldom used the f/2.8 version, as by then I had moved mostly in landscape and travel photography.  While I retained both versions -- in fact, still have them, though they now are never used -- I can't recall a single time when out with the f/4 lens that I wished I had brought the f/2.8 instead.  The weight saving was that important ... to me.