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

well it appears to me that you know the answer.....

rational use case says f4

but you want the 2.8

I find photography is far more fun when you buy what you want and then find new ways to shoot. 2.8 may become your new normal?

By the way I find the RF2.8 weight to be negligible compared to the old EF2.8.

You’re very correct that the f/2.8 is very heavy.

OTOH, there’s a limitation to the 200mm length and if f/2.8 isn’t so important to you, then your comparison should be the 70-200 f/4 vs the 100-500mm L.

RF teleconverters are very expensive and using one to create a 400mm f/8 lens doesn’t make much sense anyway.

MarshallG wrote:

You’re very correct that the f/2.8 is very heavy.

OTOH, there’s a limitation to the 200mm length and if f/2.8 isn’t so important to you, then your comparison should be the 70-200 f/4 vs the 100-500mm L.

RF teleconverters are very expensive and using one to create a 400mm f/8 lens doesn’t make much sense anyway.

It's also impossible. The RF 70-200s don't take the RF extenders. At least the F2.8 version doesn't. Does the F4 version?

Alastair Norcross wrote:

MarshallG wrote:

You’re very correct that the f/2.8 is very heavy.

OTOH, there’s a limitation to the 200mm length and if f/2.8 isn’t so important to you, then your comparison should be the 70-200 f/4 vs the 100-500mm L.

RF teleconverters are very expensive and using one to create a 400mm f/8 lens doesn’t make much sense anyway.

It's also impossible. The RF 70-200s don't take the RF extenders. At least the F2.8 version doesn't. Does the F4 version?

That’s just ridicililious!!!! (So ridiculous I had to invent a new word just to describe how ridiculous it is!).

As if the $500 price tag isn’t ridicililious enough!

Alastair Norcross wrote:

MarshallG wrote:

You’re very correct that the f/2.8 is very heavy.

OTOH, there’s a limitation to the 200mm length and if f/2.8 isn’t so important to you, then your comparison should be the 70-200 f/4 vs the 100-500mm L.

RF teleconverters are very expensive and using one to create a 400mm f/8 lens doesn’t make much sense anyway.

It's also impossible. The RF 70-200s don't take the RF extenders. At least the F2.8 version doesn't. Does the F4 version?

No, it does not. It is also "upgraded".

-- hide signature --

“When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror, like the passengers in his car.” Jack Handey
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile

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),

Well, in that case I would go f/4.0

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.

Again, f/4.0

For those occasional portraits and events you can spend the rest on a used Sigma 85mm (or even 105mm) f/1.4 Art, those lenses are getting pretty affordable these days, and those are two stops brighter than the f/2.8 zoom, so for light gathering these are running circles around that f/2.8 zoom, and the same is true for creating bokeh at a workable distance.

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.

RF f/4.0 zoom to make shut up your brain, an f/1.4 prime to satisfy your heart.

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

The Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 @810 grams & 1239 euro is pretty appealing, but I think I rather stick with 85mm f/1.4 for my portraits.  When I need reach for landscapes I rather use a 100-400mm.

[text snipped]

The Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 @810 grams & 1239 euro is pretty appealing, but I think I rather stick with 85mm f/1.4 for my portraits. When I need reach for landscapes I rather use a 100-400mm.

I think you meant Tamron 70-200/2.8. I wish they had the 70-180/2.8 available for RF. I almost bought this lens in e-mount for my Sony A6600.

José B wrote:

[text snipped]

The Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 @810 grams & 1239 euro is pretty appealing, but I think I rather stick with 85mm f/1.4 for my portraits. When I need reach for landscapes I rather use a 100-400mm.

I think you meant Tamron 70-200/2.8.

No, I have an A7IV next to my R5.

I wish they had the 70-180/2.8 available for RF.

I would prefer to slap it on my R5, and the same is true for the 50mm f/1.2 GM and Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DN, as the R5 is the better camera, but like the Rolling Stones where singing:  You can't always get what you want.

I almost bought this lens in e-mount for my Sony A6600.

Makes sense.

MarshallG wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

MarshallG wrote:

You’re very correct that the f/2.8 is very heavy.

OTOH, there’s a limitation to the 200mm length and if f/2.8 isn’t so important to you, then your comparison should be the 70-200 f/4 vs the 100-500mm L.

RF teleconverters are very expensive and using one to create a 400mm f/8 lens doesn’t make much sense anyway.

It's also impossible. The RF 70-200s don't take the RF extenders. At least the F2.8 version doesn't. Does the F4 version?

That’s just ridicililious!!!! (So ridiculous I had to invent a new word just to describe how ridiculous it is!).

As if the $500 price tag isn’t ridicililious enough!

Well I guess it is so they can shrink the size - even the 100-500 cant take extenders and retain full range.....

I guess really such an expensive lens you'd only use wide open and if one needed 280mm f/4 then the 100-500 is only ~1 stop behind on the RF 2.8 70-200 and is just as good as the f/4 70-200.  So guess Canon thought TC's not relevant for these RF's.

I take Alistair's point on size/weight on the 70-200 f/2.8 but at a huge cost premium on the RF vs EF II mint used warranty copy.   I'd never use a 2X TC on these as better options out there - the 1.4X can sometime be handy and retains good IQ on the EF.   One can buy the EF, a slightly bigger bag and a very nice extra lens (or extra vacation) for the price difference.

thunder storm wrote:

José B wrote:

[text snipped]

The Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 @810 grams & 1239 euro is pretty appealing, but I think I rather stick with 85mm f/1.4 for my portraits. When I need reach for landscapes I rather use a 100-400mm.

I think you meant Tamron 70-200/2.8.

No, I have an A7IV next to my R5.

I wish they had the 70-180/2.8 available for RF.

I would prefer to slap it on my R5, and the same is true for the 50mm f/1.2 GM and Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DN, as the R5 is the better camera, but like the Rolling Stones where singing: You can't always get what you want.

I almost bought this lens in e-mount for my Sony A6600.

Makes sense.

hahahaha, that's a great problem to have----What do I feel like today, should I shoot with the R5 or A7IV?

If the Tammy comes out in RF, I'll sell my EF 70-200/2.8 L IS for whatever it is worth. I don't think I will miss the extra 20mm.

Alastair Norcross wrote:

MarshallG wrote:

You’re very correct that the f/2.8 is very heavy.

OTOH, there’s a limitation to the 200mm length and if f/2.8 isn’t so important to you, then your comparison should be the 70-200 f/4 vs the 100-500mm L.

RF teleconverters are very expensive and using one to create a 400mm f/8 lens doesn’t make much sense anyway.

It's also impossible. The RF 70-200s don't take the RF extenders. At least the F2.8 version doesn't. Does the F4 version?

I don't think either RF 70-200 will work with extenders (back element is too close to the back end of the lens).

José B wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

José B wrote:

[text snipped]

The Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 @810 grams & 1239 euro is pretty appealing, but I think I rather stick with 85mm f/1.4 for my portraits. When I need reach for landscapes I rather use a 100-400mm.

I think you meant Tamron 70-200/2.8.

No, I have an A7IV next to my R5.

I wish they had the 70-180/2.8 available for RF.

I would prefer to slap it on my R5, and the same is true for the 50mm f/1.2 GM and Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DN, as the R5 is the better camera, but like the Rolling Stones where singing: You can't always get what you want.

I almost bought this lens in e-mount for my Sony A6600.

Makes sense.

hahahaha, that's a great problem to have----What do I feel like today, should I shoot with the R5 or A7IV?

I'm not complaining.   I can also shoot multiple bodies to avoid lens changes. The best thing Canon ever did is creating the EF mount so I can shoot my sigma EF glass on both bodies.   There's just one remaining first world problem: I can't use the FE 50mm and FE 85mm simultaneously, as both lenses need the A7IV. That's where the incompatibility hits me.

If the Tammy comes out in RF, I'll sell my EF 70-200/2.8 L IS for whatever it is worth. I don't think I will miss the extra 20mm.

No, definitely not, 180 is more than enough. 105mm is the max for portraits, and 85mm is often better. Too much compression for my taste on those longer focal length anyway. Even the Tamron 35-150mm f/2.0-2.8 is longer than I need. The RF 28-70mm f/2.0 is a bit too short OTOH.

What I really want is a 45-80mm f/1.8. If Nikon will make a good one I will buy a Nikon body too.

I ended up going with the 4.0, mainly because I could still pack that lens And the 24-105L in the same bag I use for my M43 gear. Plus maybe I'm used to a little more depth of field having shot M43 for so long.

The rf 70-200f4 is a very, very good lens, it's not a superb lens.  If you like to pixel peep (I don't), and you're shooting in dark environments, you'd have to go with the 2.8. Otherwise for most, the F4 will be fine.

I find if my gear is too big, I don't use it. I have some nikon Z gear, and arguably some of those lenses are better than my m43 and some of my canon gear, but they're so big I did't want to bring them anywhere.