Canon EF 70-200 f 2.8 vs RF version

[JEJE12]

Hello

I am using a Canon R5 and R6 and I have a little bit of budget left to complete my lens kits.. The Canon RF 70 200 F2.8 seems amazing but it is quite a bit of money and I hear the EF version is quite amazing too.. and obviously much cheaper... so my question is.. besides the weight difference, what would be the drawback in using this lens with an adapter as opposed to the RF version? 

[shadowsports · Accepted solution]

Greetings ,

If buying EF, I would recommend buying used.  I still have my EF 70-200 f2.8.  I also have the RF version.  I personally prefer the RF version because it's much more compact.  I believe Canon will be announcing a mkII version of the RF sometime this year.  It will be an internal zoom, similar to the 24-105Z.  This model might be compatible with a TC where as the mkI version is not.  I wouldn't use a TC on my 70-200 either way, so this changes nothing for me.  It's definitely one of the nicest lenses I own.

The EF version comes in mkI, mkII, and mkIII variants.  There is no reason to purchase the mkIII, if you can get a markII for less money.  The only difference is the color of the signature white paint on the barrel and the type of lens coating used.  

With that considered, I would still recommend you buy the RF version of the lens.  Your mirrorless bodies deserve mirrorless lenses.  Can you use them with EF glass, absolutely, but investing in RF is a better long-term proposition from a compatibility, performance and support perspective.

[shadowsports · Accepted solution]

Greetings ,

If buying EF, I would recommend buying used.  I still have my EF 70-200 f2.8.  I also have the RF version.  I personally prefer the RF version because it's much more compact.  I believe Canon will be announcing a mkII version of the RF sometime this year.  It will be an internal zoom, similar to the 24-105Z.  This model might be compatible with a TC where as the mkI version is not.  I wouldn't use a TC on my 70-200 either way, so this changes nothing for me.  It's definitely one of the nicest lenses I own.

The EF version comes in mkI, mkII, and mkIII variants.  There is no reason to purchase the mkIII, if you can get a markII for less money.  The only difference is the color of the signature white paint on the barrel and the type of lens coating used.  

With that considered, I would still recommend you buy the RF version of the lens.  Your mirrorless bodies deserve mirrorless lenses.  Can you use them with EF glass, absolutely, but investing in RF is a better long-term proposition from a compatibility, performance and support perspective.

[Aurora4233 · Accepted solution]

I'm not going to be as detailed as Rick but I've had a few free minutes this afternoon and I'm peppering all the posts with 'Get on with RF lenses already!!'.  I've been so impressed with my RF lenses that I returned 14 EF lenses to B&H just to practice what I preach.  An R body does deserve an RF lens and what I've been saying on other posts is that the RF focus speed and tracking (L-series or not) beats any EF I've had and when weight and size are compared it is a clear win for RF.

No question there are fantastic EF used values out there (I contributed 14 myself) so if budget is absolutely a limiting factor then don't feel bad about going with an EF bargain... BUT the sooner you get on with RF the happier you'll be for years and years to come!!

Giddy up and grab your RFs!!!

Chris