topic Re: Canon rf 70-200 comparison between f4 and f2.8 in EF & RF Lenses

Canon rf 70-200 comparison between f4 and f2.8

Robmae — Sun, 24 Mar 2024 19:15:19 GMT

I'm trying to decide between the Canon RF 70-200 2.8 and the Canon RF 70-200 f4

Price, weight and the wider aperture are the only three differences I can determine. I've had the opportunity to test out the 2.8 and used it at F4 just to see if I can be happy with that being my widest aperture and I definitely can. My question is: Are there any other differences between the two lenes? If I were to take the exact same picture with both lenes and shot at f4 on both of them would there be any difference in quality, sharpness, etc?

thanks so much.

Robin

Re: Canon rf 70-200 comparison between f4 and f2.8

wq9nsc — Sun, 24 Mar 2024 23:46:04 GMT

Robin,

Keep in mind that focus is going to be a little bit faster with a f2.8 lens because it lets in more light. If fastest possible AF is important to the type of photography you do, then that is a consideration.

I haven't used either of the RF lenses you are considering, but even with excellent quality glass a lens stepped down one stop from wide open is typically sharper than a lens shot wide open. How important is this? To me, with quality lenses it isn't a deal breaker because both of these Canon lenses will perform very well so unless you are in the "pixel peeping" camp looking for every possible aberration the difference will be so small as to be unimportant.

The weight (and cost) of smaller aperture glass is very compelling and if you are sure that f4 will cover your needs then it is a good choice. I shoot mostly sports, and a little wildlife, and for what I do the extra expense and weight is worth going for f2.8 but that isn't the case for a lot of photography. But one last bit of advice: high quality glass is something that you will use with many different camera bodies over time. I still regularly use a couple of the L series f2.8 lenses I bought with my first 1 series Canon body back in 2005 and they continue to perform beautifully. Image sensor and AF technology isn't changing as rapidly as it did a few years ago BUT camera bodies will continue to evolve and advance faster than the lenses so buying the best lens now results in a great piece of gear you will continue using long after your present camera body has been retired.

Rodger

Re: Canon rf 70-200 comparison between f4 and f2.8

justadude — Mon, 25 Mar 2024 14:54:39 GMT

Keep in mind that all other things being equal, will there ever be a time in the future that you wish you would have needed the F/2.8? I don't use my Canon 70-200mm F/2.8L often because typically I shoot wide. However, when I do use the 70-200, most of the time I am using it at F/2.8. I would personally be disappointed with F/4 for what I shoot.

That being said, most of my shots with this lens are either fast moving people, wildlife, etc. or landscapes in the evening with lower light. It depends on what YOU plan on using it for now, and might use it for in the future.

Re: Canon rf 70-200 comparison between f4 and f2.8

Robmae — Tue, 26 Mar 2024 13:42:58 GMT

Thank you Rodger and Gary. You both told me what I didn't want to hear and that is that even though I'd be happy without the 2.8 now there may come a time when I NEED it. My go to lens is my RF 15-35mm, f2.8--(an AMAZING lens), but occasionally I need to get closer and hence the search. What (still) attracts me to the f4 is the weight. Not so much for carrying or even hand holding, but that it may be easier to mount on the camera quickly when I'm out in the elements. Thanks again for your replies. I'll torture myself for at least a few more days before I decide.

Re: Canon rf 70-200 comparison between f4 and f2.8

justadude — Tue, 26 Mar 2024 14:05:30 GMT

"I'll torture myself for at least a few more days before I decide."

The sounds like me whenever I purchase ANYTHING over $100. 😄

"there may come a time when I NEED it."

What do you see yourself photographing with this lens - now and in the future - that may be low light, or fast moving?

Also, a question for my benefit, please. Have you used your RF 15-35mm on night skies? I'm looking for feedback from someone who has. I'm considering if it would be a good upgrade for my Rokinon 14mm (which I love).

Re: Canon rf 70-200 comparison between f4 and f2.8

ebiggs1 — Tue, 26 Mar 2024 15:10:16 GMT

"...I'd be happy without the 2.8 now there may come a time when I NEED it."

Going from f4 to f2.8 is one stop. The numbers may seem to be farther apart but in lens terms they are one stop. 90% of the time one stop is not going to be the difference between you getting the shot or missing the shot. Even made more so in this new world of cameras with better and better high ISO performance.

Now you can make the argument that DOF is reduced and sometimes that is desirable but again in this new world of editors like Photoshop even that is less and less a factor. If I were to make the decision I would use cost, weight and size before I would consider the f-ratio. The lens you use is always better than the one that sits at home.

Re: Canon rf 70-200 comparison between f4 and f2.8

Aurora4233 — Wed, 27 Mar 2024 04:00:37 GMT

I'm a completely thrilled owner and heavy user of the RF 70-200 f2.8 and I'm also extremely conscious of size and weight because most of my shooting is over several hours and I have to lug everything. I would never discourage quality wide aperture f2.8 and wider lenses for the images and performance they produce, however for less cost than the 2.8 and less size/weight overall you could roll with the RF 70-200 f4 AND an outstanding RF 85 f2, RF 50 f1.8, or my favorite RF 35 f1.8 for the wide aperture work.

You haven't said a lot about budget so if that's really not an issue then like others have said just get the amazing 70-200 f2.8 so you never regret it. If size, weight, AND budget matter than consider my suggestion above. I tend to find that if I'm not specifically looking for the f2.8 'look' than even the f4-6.3 of my RF 24-240 is perfectly satisfactory then I pop a stellar wide aperture prime on for a handful of portraits or detail shots.

You'd never be disappointed with a 70-200 f4 and it's a breeze to carry around, just be honest with yourself about your style of shooting as to whether the f2.8 depth of field will be something you'd regret not having (although cheating with a cheap prime can smooth over that regret quickly, effectively and inexpensively 😉 )

Re: Canon rf 70-200 comparison between f4 and f2.8

ebiggs1 — Wed, 27 Mar 2024 14:50:50 GMT

"I'm a completely thrilled owner and heavy user of the RF 70-200 f2.8 ..."

In Lightroom set the filter to show how many shots were at f2.8. It may surprise you. I agree I would never tell someone not to buy f2.8L lenses since for myself all my main most used trio are f2.8L lenses. But in reality how many shots are at f2.8 says something, too.

Yes, there are valid reasons for buying each over the other besides the one stop advantage or the lack thereof.

Re: Canon rf 70-200 comparison between f4 and f2.8

Aurora4233 — Thu, 28 Mar 2024 00:12:56 GMT

I primarily shoot in Av unless I'm shooting jets then it's TV 1/2000ish so I do know if the 2.8 is on it's shooting in 2.8 cause that's really the reason I put it on. There is something magical about that lens at 2.8 and if that's not what I'm looking for then the RF 24-240 or the RF 100-400 is on there at whatever f they can muster. If I don't care about weight or want slightly better f and quality I'll roll out the RF 100-500.

I'm definitely aware the camera doesn't pick 2.8 (or whatever the lowest f is) if it's given a choice so you'd be right about few being at 2.8 aperture if I wasn't forcing it.

** Bonus since we're on camera settings - I said I shoot in Av but I lied, I actually shoot in C1 that I've programmed as Av with a 1/250 minimum shutter so I get to control the f but don't have to worry about the camera picking 1/50th when kids are running around. Both of our bodies can handle insane ISOs so I've really taken that off my cross check and it's all about picking my f and if necessary I switch to C2 that I've programmed for Tv with a starting setting of 1/2000 (which usually results in a wide open f). I have C1 and C2 set like that on both bodies so I'm in C1 for the crowds with low f unless it's a group shot then I push up to f4 or f5.6 for a few shots then back down to f2.8 or whatever is available. C2 if jets are whizzing by then back to C1.

I've always enjoyed tweaking the Cs to whatever I need since I can't always trust straight Av.

Re: Canon rf 70-200 comparison between f4 and f2.8

Robmae — Thu, 28 Mar 2024 14:22:33 GMT

Thanks all for the responses. I did a number of test shots, R6 on a tripod, shooting at the focal length of 177mm to maximize the bokeh and taking the same shot one at f4, at 1/250 and one at f2.8 at 1/500 sec. The last one is one I took outside, obviously, at f4.5 and the lens zoomed out hand held with the focus on the ice covered bud It also has been edited in LR. The two inside ones are raw and un-edited. For the most part I'll be looking to use the 70-200 as I have in the outside image. I can't see having 2.8 will a huge difference but I'd like opinions. Hopefully these images will post successfully.

Re: Canon rf 70-200 comparison between f4 and f2.8

ebiggs1 — Thu, 28 Mar 2024 15:23:16 GMT

Robmae,

Despite what some folks say there is only one stop difference between f2.8 and f4. Yes there is a difference but the question is will that one stop be enough to make or break your shot? To some the answer is yes it is but in real world general use the answer is no, it is not.

There are several other differences between the two lenses we are comparing besides the aperture. And of course price being at the top I suppose. Everyone is different and that is one reason Canon makes so many different lenses to choose from. However the facts are fact and the truth is the truth. If we disregard the f2.8 aperture for the moment, the fact is beside the f2.8 aperture the Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens is the best in class lens made, period. It really has no peers. Your decision is, is it that much better for your application and will it do that much better? Only you can make that decision.

Re: Canon rf 70-200 comparison between f4 and f2.8

ebiggs1 — Thu, 28 Mar 2024 15:31:21 GMT

More understanding how you shoot, if you did do as I suggested in LR, I am certain you will find none of your shots are at f2.8. Only the ones where you made a conscientious decision to lock in f2.8 yourself will you find any. However that isn't the only reason to consider the Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens as it has other design benefits that make it the better lens. As always the question remains is it that much better and/or is it the reason you get shots that the f4 model couldn't get. My single assertation is f2.8 vs f4 is not the reason.

Re: Canon rf 70-200 comparison between f4 and f2.8

Robmae — Thu, 28 Mar 2024 15:47:39 GMT

EB, so you ARE saying that disregarding the 2.8 aperture the Canon RF 70-200 2.8 is a better quality lens than the Canon RF 70-200 f4? That's really what I want to know. And if it IS better: in what way? Is the glass better? I got thinking about this when I was thinking about the difference in weight. Why is the f4 a pound lighter? Is it JUST the extra glass/technology that goes into the 2.8 lens or ---?

Ultimately: for my application it probably won't make a difference either way, but I always want to know the limitations of the equipment I use so that when I'm looking at the finished image and there's something that doesn't measure up I can know if it was me or the equipment. That's what makes this passion so expensive.

Re: Canon rf 70-200 comparison between f4 and f2.8

ebiggs1 — Fri, 29 Mar 2024 14:18:35 GMT

The Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens is in the top level of lenses made by Canon so it gets the best of everything. It is heavier because that one stop requires more elements and bigger elements. Disregard the f2.8 vs f4 for a moment, the Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens would still be the better lens. However is it that much better? Only you can answer that question as the f4 version is plenty good.

What I am trying to make clear to all is, the one stop advantage is only one spec. When you are considering a lens to buy you really need to consider all its attributes and not simply one. There would be no gain if the less costly, lighter and smaller f4 model did all you wanted.

Re: Canon rf 70-200 comparison between f4 and f2.8

Robmae — Fri, 29 Mar 2024 16:17:33 GMT

Thankyou EB and all for the help. And in answer to the question asked of me about the Canon RF15-35 2.8 being good for star/night photography. I've used if very little for that but of course it would be great with the wide aperture and the 15mm. It is hardly ever off my camera. Just an amazing lens period.

Re: Canon rf 70-200 comparison between f4 and f2.8

madmos — Tue, 02 Apr 2024 14:53:07 GMT

The 2.8 is not a heavy lens by any means. It is IMO, the best RF consumer lens that Canon makes. It is almost never off my camera. Only when I need more reach or am in a tight space.

It comes down to budget. If you are not concerned with price the 2.8 is the better lens. You will never be shooting with it and wish you had the f4 instead. However if money is tight and you do not want to wait the f4 is a very capable lens. But there will be times down the road where you will be wondering if you should have bought the 2.8.

Also consider canon refurbished. The 2.8 is anywhere from 2100 to 2250 depending on sales timing. Same warranty as new and is really the best deal. They did not have them in stock when I bought mine so I had to get new for $2500. I have zero regrets. It is by far my most used lens. Indoor, outdoor, portrait, action, you name it and it not only does it buy it does it well

Re: Canon rf 70-200 comparison between f4 and f2.8

ebiggs1 — Wed, 03 Apr 2024 14:10:09 GMT

"... the best RF ~~consumer~~ professional lens that Canon makes."

Re: Canon rf 70-200 comparison between f4 and f2.8

wve — Sat, 05 Oct 2024 21:13:18 GMT

I know I’m late to the party on this thread but I’ve just gone through this decision myself and thought I’d share!

After waffling back and forth for a while I decided to take the plunge and go for the 2.8. Everything folks were saying about the added advantage of the extra stop made sense and I figured even though I’m not the kind of photographer who would need a 2.8 on a regular basis it would come in handy and I’d be glad I had it.

Then I got the lens! Now I’ve never had a Canon L lens before (or the equivalent from another brand). And to be honest, I wasn’t ready for how heavy it is. I’m sure for pros who have bigger telephoto lenses and larger bodies than my R6 that the 2.8 isn’t “that big”, but for me it was daunting.

Thinking about my use case more I want to be able to easily take this hiking, biking, and ski touring, but I don’t want to sacrifice quality and drop down to a smaller camera with an APS or 4/3 sensor. With that in mind, the 2.8 just felt too big and heavy. Even just for taking out as a daily driver lens it feels to me like too much.

So I ordered the f4, and am incredibly impressed with how much smaller and lighter it is. I definitely feel like this is a lens that can live on my camera and I won’t think twice about picking it up and taking it out the door.

Also, as a first time L user, holy cow I’m impressed. I’ve mostly shot on RF primes like the 85mm f2 macro IS STM—which I’ve loved—but the L IS USM is so nice. Incredible build quality, incredibly sharp images and great autofocus.

I’m sure that’s all old hat for those who have been shooting with professional lenses for a long time but hopefully it’s a helpful perspective for any others out there who haven’t used Canon’s top of the line lenses yet!

TL;DR I’m keeping the f4 because it’s smaller and lighter and for my use cases I’ll probably be ok without the 2.8 most of the time.