The RF 70-200 F4 L IS USM is Awesome !

[JFG]

• Got it on June 17. 2023 and brought it out for a spin the next day with my R6 Mark II.  I'm glad I bought it..  I had read some reviews and as always, I found some with negative feedback.  Well, I'm happy to say that this lense lives up to what Canon states that its capable of.   I took some pics of birds in flight and the R6 M II & RF 70-200 f4 combo worked so  great, smoothly focusing and accurately taking Sharp and crisp photos.  I didn't get any vignetting like one said and the boque was perfect.   I'm now in love with this lens and glad I'didn't go with the f2.8 as its not as light and compact  not to mention the $$$ saved.  You've done it again,  Canon !

[Tronhard]

I felt, and still feel, the same about the EF version of the 70-200 f/4 MkII.  I still retain that lens in favour of buying the RF version, in part because of the cost, I don't use that range enough to upgrade and I like that the EF version does not extend, which is a benefit when there is no mirror between the sensor and the bellows effect of an extending lens.

That said, for those who have bought this lens, I do see the quality and benefit of this unit - happy shooting for the future!

[shadowsports]

The 70~200 is a fantastic lens.  f2.8 or f4.  Glad you are pleased with your kit.

Lets see some of the BIF pictures when you get a chance.  😃

[JFG]

Thanks for the good wishes, Trevor  !

Cheers 

[JFG]

Thanks Rick.  I tried posting a few pics earlier but the site wasn't cooperating.  I'll try again later. 

JFG

[Tronhard]

I agree.  I too started with film, but in my case it was Ektachrome for shooting wildlife and scenic around the world.  I did shoot in both Agfa and Kodak monochrome film and, when I was travelling without access to a darkroom, I used Kodak XP4, which I could have processed in any C41 lab as I went.

I have not shot film for over 20 years.  One of the reasons was that in the 90's someone stole my car with the majority of my commercial transparencies in the trunk.  They then torched the car and the slides, destroying years of work.  When digital came along, the concept of being able to make multiple backups was an immediate attraction and I have shot digital ever since.

Without doubt, digital has outpaced long ago the capabilities of film, yet those same differences still render a specific attraction to film images.  However, I don't see myself going back.

One thing that lives with me is the discipline that came with film.  Especially on the road, one has a limited amount of film that could be carried and yet when it shot was taken one might not see the result for weeks, creating the temptation to take multiple images or variants, yet that limit of film (and the cost) meant that was usually not possible.  As a result, I husbanded my film stock on the road and took images with care.  These days the digital natives tend to let rip and shoot huge numbers of almost identical images, which they then have to wade through.  I still keep my numbers small, but the keepers end up being of much higher proportion to the total taken.

[JFG]

I, like you, also limit my shooting to a minimum and agree that it is a habit from the days of shooting film.  However,  I'm glad that I acquired that discipline as I also don't like reviewing a series of the same frames.    Hahaha 

Cheers, Joe

[Tronhard]

You're not wrong!  I call the difference the sniper vs Rambo - who would never fire a single shot when a belt of ammunition was available...

[Danfaz]

I prefer the ergonomics of the the f/4 over the f/2.8, but ended up choosing the 2.8 for my uses of that range.

[JFG]

I like your analogy, "the sniper vs Ranbo " and agree with you.  Its like hunting, one wants to make every shot count while saving amo..  "One shot one kill ".. However, when taking action shots I may do a 3 to 5 shot burst as the subject is moving through time and space.  Some may think that it may not be enough, I guess its a subjective decision.