RF 70-200 f/2.8 vs f/4 Flipin' and flopin'

I have a sale pending on my 5D Mark IV and I am pretty well set on the idea of getting another RF lens (or two) for my R5 with the proceeds.

I currently have an EF 70-200 f/4 non-IS and it’s been an “ok” lens, and since the R5 has IBIS, the fact that the lens doesn’t have lens IS isn’t the end of the world. Nevertheless, I feel I want to sell that lens as well and get an RF version of this focal range.

My struggle, as I’m sure many have had, is whether to get the lighter, much less expensive f/4.0 version, or spending $1200-$1300 more for the f/2.8 version. The fact the sensor on my R5 is so good is making me really struggle with whether upgrading to the f/2.8 is worth that much more money (to me).

Most of my shooting (80% at least) would be landscapes where I would mostly be stopping down anyway. I know in cases where I’m shooting portraits, the f/2.8 would yield nicer, creamier bokeh, but is it $1300 worth of better bokeh given I’m not a pro?

For shooting indoors, there have been occasions where I shot an indoor event and my current EF 70-200 f/4 didn’t cut it, but with the R5 being much better at higher ISO, maybe that shortfall would be mitigated with the ability to get good results at higher ISO compared to my 5D4?  In another venue (an indoor rodeo) I got great results with my EF 135mm f/2, shooting wide open, but of course that lens doesn’t have the flexibility of the 70-200 focal range.

My heart says, “just suck it up and get the 2.8,” but my “head” says, “you don’t need the 2.8 and with the high-ISO capabilities of the R5 you could probably get fine results with the f/4 version.” The f/4 version is also smaller, lighter (for hiking) and of course much less $$.

For the amount of money I’d spend on the 2.8 version, I could buy the f/4 version plus something like the 85 f/2 and the 35mm f/1.8. Heck, if I got all these from the Canon refurbished store I could throw in the 16mm f/2.8 just for good measure. If I get the 70-200 f2.8 then that’s all I’m getting (for a good while).

I’m flipping and flopping on this decision like the ball in an Olympic ping pong match! Has anyone else struggled with this question? If so, what did you decide and why? I know it’s ultimately my decision, but I always like to hear other peoples opinions and use cases.

Basil Fawlty wrote:

I have a sale pending on my 5D Mark IV and I am pretty well set on the idea of getting another RF lens (or two) for my R5 with the proceeds.

I currently have an EF 70-200 f/4 non-IS and it’s been an “ok” lens, and since the R5 has IBIS, the fact that the lens doesn’t have lens IS isn’t the end of the world. Nevertheless, I feel I want to sell that lens as well and get an RF version of this focal range.

My struggle, as I’m sure many have had, is whether to get the lighter, much less expensive f/4.0 version, or spending $1200-$1300 more for the f/2.8 version. The fact the sensor on my R5 is so good is making me really struggle with whether upgrading to the f/2.8 is worth that much more money (to me).

Most of my shooting (80% at least) would be landscapes where I would mostly be stopping down anyway. I know in cases where I’m shooting portraits, the f/2.8 would yield nicer, creamier bokeh, but is it $1300 worth of better bokeh given I’m not a pro?

For shooting indoors, there have been occasions where I shot an indoor event and my current EF 70-200 f/4 didn’t cut it, but with the R5 being much better at higher ISO, maybe that shortfall would be mitigated with the ability to get good results at higher ISO compared to my 5D4? In another venue (an indoor rodeo) I got great results with my EF 135mm f/2, shooting wide open, but of course that lens doesn’t have the flexibility of the 70-200 focal range.

My heart says, “just suck it up and get the 2.8,” but my “head” says, “you don’t need the 2.8 and with the high-ISO capabilities of the R5 you could probably get fine results with the f/4 version.” The f/4 version is also smaller, lighter (for hiking) and of course much less $$.

For the amount of money I’d spend on the 2.8 version, I could buy the f/4 version plus something like the 85 f/2 and the 35mm f/1.8. Heck, if I got all these from the Canon refurbished store I could throw in the 16mm f/2.8 just for good measure. If I get the 70-200 f2.8 then that’s all I’m getting (for a good while).

I’m flipping and flopping on this decision like the ball in an Olympic ping pong match! Has anyone else struggled with this question? If so, what did you decide and why? I know it’s ultimately my decision, but I always like to hear other peoples opinions and use cases.

All I can say is the f4 is a wonderful lens, and so compact, in fact exactly the same size as the RF24-105/4L.  Perfect for travel, walking around etc.  Do you actually need f2.8?

jwilliams wrote:

Listen to your 'head'. Only reason to listen to your 'heart' is if it REALLY hates your wallet.

This is me right now:

Basil Fawlty wrote:

I have a sale pending on my 5D Mark IV and I am pretty well set on the idea of getting another RF lens (or two) for my R5 with the proceeds.

I currently have an EF 70-200 f/4 non-IS and it’s been an “ok” lens, and since the R5 has IBIS, the fact that the lens doesn’t have lens IS isn’t the end of the world. Nevertheless, I feel I want to sell that lens as well and get an RF version of this focal range.

My struggle, as I’m sure many have had, is whether to get the lighter, much less expensive f/4.0 version, or spending $1200-$1300 more for the f/2.8 version. The fact the sensor on my R5 is so good is making me really struggle with whether upgrading to the f/2.8 is worth that much more money (to me).

Most of my shooting (80% at least) would be landscapes where I would mostly be stopping down anyway. I know in cases where I’m shooting portraits, the f/2.8 would yield nicer, creamier bokeh, but is it $1300 worth of better bokeh given I’m not a pro?

For shooting indoors, there have been occasions where I shot an indoor event and my current EF 70-200 f/4 didn’t cut it, but with the R5 being much better at higher ISO, maybe that shortfall would be mitigated with the ability to get good results at higher ISO compared to my 5D4? In another venue (an indoor rodeo) I got great results with my EF 135mm f/2, shooting wide open, but of course that lens doesn’t have the flexibility of the 70-200 focal range.

My heart says, “just suck it up and get the 2.8,” but my “head” says, “you don’t need the 2.8 and with the high-ISO capabilities of the R5 you could probably get fine results with the f/4 version.” The f/4 version is also smaller, lighter (for hiking) and of course much less $$.

For the amount of money I’d spend on the 2.8 version, I could buy the f/4 version plus something like the 85 f/2 and the 35mm f/1.8. Heck, if I got all these from the Canon refurbished store I could throw in the 16mm f/2.8 just for good measure. If I get the 70-200 f2.8 then that’s all I’m getting (for a good while).

I’m flipping and flopping on this decision like the ball in an Olympic ping pong match! Has anyone else struggled with this question? If so, what did you decide and why? I know it’s ultimately my decision, but I always like to hear other peoples opinions and use cases.

Worth renting the RF 70-200 f2.8 to see if you'd use f2.8 all that much?

I like the results of the f2.8.  There is a reason the f2.8 sells well even at $2800.  It's results are more than "fine", meh.  But if you would never take it due to size or weight and would always be at f4 or higher, then the smaller lens better matches your needs.

How much does the extra cost, extra size, and extra weight of the RF 70-200 f2.8 bother you versus your love/like/don't care of f2.8 abilities?

They’re both great lenses. You won’t regret buying either of them! One friend uses both…..

That’s a lot of help then!

I had the same decision to make and opted for the f/4 in the end. I have not regretted my choice for a moment. My type of shooting with this lens (often landscape, civil planes and some wildlife) does not need f/2.8 and the f/4 version performs very well straight from wide open. It is also lovely compact and lightweight. I had the EF 70-200 f/4 and still have the f/4 IS version I. The RF one outperforms both of them.

True, the f/2.8 is even better optically, but I doubt you will notice much difference in real life other than more shallow DOF at wide open apertures. I'd save up for other gear by getting the f/4 if you don't really need f/2.8.

Sandor.

IMO part of it depends on what you're going to do with your EF 135 f/2. If you plan to keep that (or sell & replace with another fast tele prime like the RF 135 f/1.8) then it lessens the need for a f/2.8 version of 70-200.  On the other hand if you removed the 135mm entirely then the 70-200 f/2.8 would be a nice one lens solution for that range.

Basil Fawlty wrote:

I have a sale pending on my 5D Mark IV and I am pretty well set on the idea of getting another RF lens (or two) for my R5 with the proceeds.

I currently have an EF 70-200 f/4 non-IS and it’s been an “ok” lens, and since the R5 has IBIS, the fact that the lens doesn’t have lens IS isn’t the end of the world. Nevertheless, I feel I want to sell that lens as well and get an RF version of this focal range.

My struggle, as I’m sure many have had, is whether to get the lighter, much less expensive f/4.0 version, or spending $1200-$1300 more for the f/2.8 version. The fact the sensor on my R5 is so good is making me really struggle with whether upgrading to the f/2.8 is worth that much more money (to me).

Most of my shooting (80% at least) would be landscapes where I would mostly be stopping down anyway. I know in cases where I’m shooting portraits, the f/2.8 would yield nicer, creamier bokeh, but is it $1300 worth of better bokeh given I’m not a pro?

If it's worth it has nothing to do with being a pro or not.

I'm also not sure how meaningful that percentage is. When shooting 200 portraits and 200 landscapes next to that you can love those portraits, but not because it's 50/50. If you're shooting 200 portraits and 800 landscapes, do those 600 extra landscapes make those portraits less important or less beautiful?

For shooting indoors, there have been occasions where I shot an indoor event and my current EF 70-200 f/4 didn’t cut it, but with the R5 being much better at higher ISO, maybe that shortfall would be mitigated with the ability to get good results at higher ISO compared to my 5D4? In another venue (an indoor rodeo) I got great results with my EF 135mm f/2, shooting wide open, but of course that lens doesn’t have the flexibility of the 70-200 focal range.

My heart says, “just suck it up and get the 2.8,” but my “head” says, “you don’t need the 2.8 and with the high-ISO capabilities of the R5 you could probably get fine results with the f/4 version.” The f/4 version is also smaller, lighter (for hiking) and of course much less $$.

The weight, yes, that's a thing, but you could also buy the 70-200mm f/2.8 and the RF 100-400mm slow aperture lens for the hiking.

For the amount of money I’d spend on the 2.8 version, I could buy the f/4 version plus something like the 85 f/2 and the 35mm f/1.8. Heck, if I got all these from the Canon refurbished store I could throw in the 16mm f/2.8 just for good measure. If I get the 70-200 f2.8 then that’s all I’m getting (for a good while).

I’m flipping and flopping on this decision like the ball in an Olympic ping pong match! Has anyone else struggled with this question? If so, what did you decide and why? I know it’s ultimately my decision, but I always like to hear other peoples opinions and use cases.

How important are those portraits to you?  You can tell yourself it's the heart saying f/2.8 and the head f/4.0, but my head tells me f/2.8 is going to give you better looking portraits with both stronger and smoother bokeh.

PDE94301 wrote:

IMO part of it depends on what you're going to do with your EF 135 f/2. If you plan to keep that (or sell & replace with another fast tele prime like the RF 135 f/1.8) then it lessens the need for a f/2.8 version of 70-200. On the other hand if you removed the 135mm entirely then the 70-200 f/2.8 would be a nice one lens solution for that range.

I currently plan to keep the 135 f/2  Also, if I Got the 770-200 f/4, with the money I'd save I could by the 85 f/2 and the 35 f/1.8 which would provide nice DOF at a variety of focal lengths.

spec68 wrote:

Basil Fawlty wrote:

Most of my shooting (80% at least) would be landscapes where I would mostly be stopping down anyway. I know in cases where I’m shooting portraits, the f/2.8 would yield nicer, creamier bokeh, but is it $1300 worth of better bokeh given I’m not a pro?…

My heart says, “just suck it up and get the 2.8,” but my “head” says, “you don’t need the 2.8 and with the high-ISO capabilities of the R5 you could probably get fine results with the f/4 version.” The f/4 version is also smaller, lighter (for hiking) and of course much less $$.

Your head is correct for your primary use case. No discussion necessary. Personally very happy I went with the F/4 version. Lusted a bit over the 2.8 but it would have been an idiotic GASsy buy for me. I think if one has to think hard between two versions of anything the justification for the more expensive one must be flimsy

If I'm going to be honest with myself, I have to say you're certainly right.  That said, the lust for the 2.8 is hard to shake!

drsnoopy wrote:

Basil Fawlty wrote:

I have a sale pending on my 5D Mark IV and I am pretty well set on the idea of getting another RF lens (or two) for my R5 with the proceeds.

I currently have an EF 70-200 f/4 non-IS and it’s been an “ok” lens, and since the R5 has IBIS, the fact that the lens doesn’t have lens IS isn’t the end of the world. Nevertheless, I feel I want to sell that lens as well and get an RF version of this focal range.

My struggle, as I’m sure many have had, is whether to get the lighter, much less expensive f/4.0 version, or spending $1200-$1300 more for the f/2.8 version. The fact the sensor on my R5 is so good is making me really struggle with whether upgrading to the f/2.8 is worth that much more money (to me).

Most of my shooting (80% at least) would be landscapes where I would mostly be stopping down anyway. I know in cases where I’m shooting portraits, the f/2.8 would yield nicer, creamier bokeh, but is it $1300 worth of better bokeh given I’m not a pro?

For shooting indoors, there have been occasions where I shot an indoor event and my current EF 70-200 f/4 didn’t cut it, but with the R5 being much better at higher ISO, maybe that shortfall would be mitigated with the ability to get good results at higher ISO compared to my 5D4? In another venue (an indoor rodeo) I got great results with my EF 135mm f/2, shooting wide open, but of course that lens doesn’t have the flexibility of the 70-200 focal range.

My heart says, “just suck it up and get the 2.8,” but my “head” says, “you don’t need the 2.8 and with the high-ISO capabilities of the R5 you could probably get fine results with the f/4 version.” The f/4 version is also smaller, lighter (for hiking) and of course much less $$.

For the amount of money I’d spend on the 2.8 version, I could buy the f/4 version plus something like the 85 f/2 and the 35mm f/1.8. Heck, if I got all these from the Canon refurbished store I could throw in the 16mm f/2.8 just for good measure. If I get the 70-200 f2.8 then that’s all I’m getting (for a good while).

I’m flipping and flopping on this decision like the ball in an Olympic ping pong match! Has anyone else struggled with this question? If so, what did you decide and why? I know it’s ultimately my decision, but I always like to hear other peoples opinions and use cases.

All I can say is the f4 is a wonderful lens, and so compact, in fact exactly the same size as the RF24-105/4L. Perfect for travel, walking around etc. Do you actually need f2.8?

I don't think I "need" 2.8 but I know it would be sweet.  I did rent the f4 version back before I bought the R5.  I rented it along with an R6 just to try out mirrorless.  I remember being amazed at how compact and light it was.

Basil Fawlty wrote:

......the lust for the 2.8 is hard to shake!

Especially if you won't miss your mortgage payment or go hungry as a result of your purchase.

klassenl wrote:

Basil Fawlty wrote:

......the lust for the 2.8 is hard to shake!

Especially if you won't miss your mortgage payment or go hungry as a result of your purchase.

Ha!  No, I won't go hungry, but I know in my head (vice my heart) that the f4 would be the more logical choice for my use cases, and then put th emoney I saved into other RF glass.

When I bought the F2,8 (mainly for landscape) the F4.0 didn't exist yet. According to tests the F2.8 is better than the F4.0 even if comparing 2.8 to 4.0. Landscapers tend to pixel peeping but my fingers are old and rather short so today I'd sacrifice max. resolution and go with the 4.0.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1417&Camera=1508&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=1529&CameraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0