DPReview TV: Battle of the 70-200mm F2.8 zooms (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic)

@ Rodrigo Pasiani: Sure, I am a real photographer. You will even find some photographs in my gallery ... ;-)

And why I am commenting? To add my point of view to the discussion, after enjoying the video.

So please keep doing that. Have a good weekend.

Rodrigo Pasiani: Same to you. Enjoy photography, and the weekend!

I 100% agree with you. Although these videos are fun to watch and they can help people to decide what system to buy, for people already invested in a system they have no real information.

But just a couple of years ago minute differences of dynamic range in cameras meant so much for what you could do with it.

"Deconversation" at its best...

@Photokhan

Dynamic range is much more important than lens sharpness, in terms of overall image IQ. Not sure why you're comparing the two though.

@ Rubber Dials: Most sensors can record much wider dynamic range than what is used for everyday photography. Large dynamic range comes into play for scenes with extreme contrast, like sunsets and cityscapes at night where you want detail in bright windows and dark shadows, or when you use very high ISO values.

Dynamic range for a sunlit white dressed bride and black dressed groom is about five stop, and then you want a few stop extra for some shadow detail.

Nikonuser don't care about tests, they "feel" it. Naaaaah....

I had Nikon Z and I thinks all Nikon Z lenses are sharp because in-camera corrections. I'm sure thats a reason why Nikon in-camera profile can't be turned off in Lightroom.

Sujat, the Nikon is the best based on your value system, which is fine. But it won't be the best overall.

As a former Nikon user, I almost purchased the E version, which was lauded as the best DSLR lens of this type. But I couldn't pull the trigger due to its size ("reasonable weight" for you is "unacceptably unwieldy" for others). The Canon's audacious new approach was exactly what I was looking for. I don't care about extenders. If I want to go long, I'll switch to a the 100-500mm, also the smallest zoom to 500mm. I don't care about video, so the Canon had no serious deficients for me. For you, and some others, it does. Three cheers for choices.

@RH McCaslan absolutely . canons reduces weight is fantastic achievement which will attract a lot of user . me myself would like to have something similar like that in nikons version . but you gain some thing also lose something . guess everyones priority is different

RH
The Nikon 70-200E variant for DSLRs is lighter than the competition ,for example Canon’s 70-200 so that was a bad example

No, Yxa, it is a perfect example to illustrate the Canon's size advantage.

The best of the rest being 360g (3/4 lb) heavier and more than 2 inches longer than the Canon RF provides a perfect illustration of what an amazing job Canon has done.

Moreover, my example was used to illustrate why I was tempted to buy the Nikon E, which purportedly had the best 70-200mm sharpness, but decided to not consummate the purchase due to its bulk (smaller than the rest, perhaps, but still a hulking beast). Lol, as a Nikon user at the time, why would I have been tempted to purchase any other lens?

@armandino
Fair enough - but I am not sure why? The EF 24-70L f2.8 II (for instance) is a heavily used pro workhorse and it extends without reported problems. Ditto 100-400L II and others.....

So no 24-70mm lens is a workhorse, because all of them extend.
A lens cannot be a workhorse if it extends. That's how we define "workhorse".

@NexUser
‘Workhorse’ is defined in Webster’s (for instance) as ‘something that is markedly useful, durable or dependable’. No mention of ‘extending’ or not......😊

Since you are 200% a sony user, I would think the deal-breaker was the RF mount, but good to hear your input I guess. lol.

I didn't realize extending lenses were non-professional non-workhorse lenses. damn. that kicks quite a few to the curb doesn't it?

RCicala called it “strong, like bull”. https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/12/the-not-very-long-awaited-teardown-of-the-canon-rf-70-200mm-f2-8-is/

“It’s obviously very robustly engineered from a mechanical standpoint. The internal composites are strong as hell. There are double cams, rods, and posts everywhere. There’s no play in any moving parts. We can’t imagine there will ever be play in the moving parts unless you run over it with a truck. You could describe it as ruggedized, but I’m going to stick with Strong, Like Bull, and suggest we refer to this as the RF-SLB 70-200mm f/2.8 from now on.”

I did. all your new gear is Sony.. all your newer gear is Sony.. so what exactly is your point? Carry on though.
How does that extending 100-400 work for you or did you toss it?

For everyone who is asking, the 70-200/2.8 is a critical lens for sport and action photography. You sacrifice best zooming performance when you have an extending lens. That is not acceptable for such a core application for this lens. Shorter focal lens zooms are generally not used for sports, and as much as an internal zoom would be better it would not be as critical. But again, I give big credits to DPr however no-one in their team is a pro sport shooter, and that shows at times in their evaluations.

@rrc1967
I guess you missed the R5 and the fact that my most expensive glass is Canon? Your comment "Since you are 200% a sony user" makes no sense. I just invested about $15,000 in Canon gear in the last few months and $0 in Sony equipment. I do admit I am not particularly fond of the RF glass as much as optically outstanding, but that is for practical reasons, not because I am ALSO a Sony user.

hah! you are correct - I did miss it. please accept my apologies.

@Kandid
as I mentioned above, shorter focal lens do not mean much for sports, nevertheless, would you prefer a lens with a zoom that feels like the 16-35/2.8 or the 24-70? The fact that extending zooms are universally accepted does not mean that they are de facto far inferior to internal zooms in real world experience. The 100-400 is a real pain for sports, I sold my Sony equivalent for my 200-600 with internal zoom, just no comparison. But again, when all you got is an extending zoom you suck it up and deal with your only option. I understand that for some the compactness matters a lot, and I understand that for many a collapsible 70-200/2.8 is valuable. Still A compromise I would not want to see on such lens. I can see the 70-200/4 being more tailored for such compromise.

Yeah I just totally missed the R5 .. sorry about that. Hope you are enjoying your new camera.

@NexUser
as I explained above, the other zooms you mentioned are not really used for critical work in sports, where an internal zoom matters a lot. There are obvious reasons for which all other current and past 70-200/2.8 have internal zooming. It is indeed a shame that the the new 100-500 is also non-internal. Try that side by side with a Sony 200-600 and then then tell me what you think.

@Kandid
Internal zooms are much faster and smoother in operation. Moving and internal element does not have the same inertia and the viscous force induced by the air pumping (which is function of the speed at which you are zooming). Also, they do not shift balance as you are handholding them, not to mention that many extending zooms tend to creep out when they point down. In sport photography, when you spend top money for top performance, that matters more than a camera that focuses a bit better than another one. I suggest to go to a store and try out a Sony 200-600 and compare with the new canon 100-500 or similar.

@rrc1967
I forgot to mention, I sold my 100-400 as soon as I got the 200-600. While it has a great range the zooming experience was frustrating. Thanks for bringing that up, I should remove it from my current gear list.

@armandino
Each to his own I guess. It’s clear you have experience with both and have made your conclusions - others may prefer the compact ease and speed of use of an extending zoom. I looked at the ef 200-400 f4 which is obviously faster and has the extender but it’s huge and heavy and more importantly unwieldy. The 200-600 looks to be an excellent lens but I am more tempted by the new 100-500 because of its usability and portability. Whadda I know.....?😊

@Kandid
indeed, in my first post I said it is a dealbreaker "for me". I understand that others have different priorities. Btw, 7.1 @ 500 (and likely at much shorter focal length) is not so usable in sports. The Sony 6.3 @600 seems a lot more reasonable with a comparable F value to 100-400 in the 200-400 range. Not so for the 100-500. Likely a good lens for travel and wildlife with not so fast moving animals or in bright conditions, and again, the massively extending front element.

@Kandid
you might be interested in this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wG6L8fMxhKU

Internal zooms do not shift balance? hahahahahahaha. Where the hell do you think those elements move?