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

[Robmae]

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

[Robmae]

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. 

[ebiggs1]

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.

[Robmae]

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.   

[ebiggs1]

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.

[Robmae]

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. 

[madmos]

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 

[ebiggs1]

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