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 !

[JFG]

These are my reasons for selecting the f4 over the f2.8 :  

Canon RF 70-200mm f/4:                 Its 375g lighter 695g vs1.07g.                 Its 0.1m shorter minimum focus distance 0.6m vs 0.7m.                      Front element doesn't rotate.            Has 0.05x Better magnification factor 0.28x vs 0.23x 

Having said that, the F4 doesn't gather as much light as the F2.8, so if you work in dim light or cover indoor events the F2.8 is the best choice.. 👌 

Both are great lenses and deliver spectacular crisp, sharp pictures. 

[Danfaz]

The 2.8 also has a metal mount, and the front element does not rotate. 

[Tronhard]

As far as build goes, I found them of similar quality.

I totally get that for people who do certain genres of photography: portrait, events, fashion, advertising, some landscapes etc., the extra f/stop is worth the cost and the weight.    For me, as a predominantly wildlife shooter, moving from DSLRs to MILCs, I had to lose some glass (I had a lot) and I just didn't use the f/2.8 version because of its weight and, in fact, any 70-200 because the focal range was not right for my subjects.  Still, I really liked the quality (both optical and construction) of the f/4 version and in case I did need such a range, I hung onto the f/4 unit.

My go-to ranges usually start at around 200mm and go to about 1,000mm - so very different.  That said, now that I am retired, I got the excellent RF 24-35L lens to expand my horizons and shoot wide, and I am enjoying the experience!

[JFG]

Your right. all of the L series lenses have a metal mount.  I also like that the front element doesn't rotate.  That's a nice upgrade for changing lense filters.  

[JFG]

Trevor, I think you will find a new world of photography with your new RF 14-35 L lense.  I purchased my camera with a RF 24-105mm f4 is usm and its great.  However, there are times when I wish I had an RF 14-35 lense.  There is so much one can do with a fish eye lense.  Let me know how your new lense works out for you.

Cheers, JFG

[Tronhard]

Thanks JFG!  Actually the 14-35 is not a true fisheye lens, but it is a super wide angle lens.  One of the things I liked about it was that I could add filters to it without a special adapter and I got some magnetic filters with variable and graduated ND filters so I can try some super long exposures. 

I was holding out for the planned RF 10-24 f/4 L, but got tired of waiting (of course it will inevitably come out next week, now I have bought). 🙄

Still, with three lenses - 14-35L, 24-105L and 100-500L I have a sort of holy trinity that will cover pretty much all I need, and if I get desperate I can use my EF 150-600 and 60-600 Sigma lenses - which have been great for wildlife.  

[JFG]

Your right, the 14-35 is not a true fish eye lense, however at 14 mm it does give somewhat of a fish eye effect.   😀   I myself find a true fish eye lense too specialized and the 14-35 mm lense is just in the cusp.  I'm having fun with the lenses I have and will have to wait a while to justify purchasing an additional lense. Also, I like wildlife and action photography so my next purchase will be a toss up between a EF150-600 and a 14-35 lense.   I now have an EF 75-300mm that I kept from my previous system and use with my M50 Mark II when I'm traveling and have limited carrying space..  How does your EF150-600 compare to your Sigma 60-600 ?

[FilmCanister]

Would you recommend the EF 70-200 f/4 MkII on a converter for an R series over the newer RF version? It seems like a strength of the earlier model to have the internal zoom and the ability to use an extender. I'm not sure if the same comparison is applicable for the f2.8 models but I'm currently considering both the f4 and 2.8 RF versions.

[Tronhard]

Would you recommend the EF 70-200 f/4 MkII on a converter for an R series over the newer RF version?

Personally, I made the choice to retain the EF 70-200 f/4 MkII for a couple of reasons:
1. It works perfectly well with the R-series bodies I use and, as I said, I like the fact that the lens does not extend.
2. That focal length range is one I very rarely use - I shoot longer so my go-lenses are EF70-300L (minimum), EF100-400MKII, Sigma 150-600c, 60-600s and RF 100-500L.   To me it just wasn't worth the cost of any change - however, we all shoot for different reasons at different subjects and thus with different lens preferences, so I cannot make a blanket statement for anyone else, but I would say that these things are worth considering.

[Tronhard]

Your [sic] right, the 14-35 is not a true fish eye lense [sic], however at 14 mm it does give somewhat of a fish eye effect.

Well, with respect I beg to differ.  I agree that it has ultra-zoom capabilities in common with the fisheye, although they tend to be much shorter FL still, but as you can see from the image of the coffin outer for the Ancient Egyptian Nakht, taken at very close quarters, it does not in any way render the curved lines of straight objects that are the hallmark of a fisheye - which is why a fisheye has that name, after all. 🙂  The rather ragged lines on the base are the actual wood may be due to its original natural shape, or warping over time.
Canon EOS R6II, RF14-35@14mm, f/4, 1/15sec, ISO-2500

As regards the two Sigmas:
They both work seamlessly with my R5, R6 and R6II bodies.  That said, each lens has its own strength. 

The 150-600c is much lighter, which can be convenient, especially as I shoot hand-held pretty much exclusively.  With the R5 I can put that in 1.3 or 1.6 crop mode and shoot with a FoV equivalent to 195-780mm or 240- 960mm respectively.  Even with the loss of pixels: 1.3 renders 26MP, while 1.6 gives 17MP - that is enough for my purposes, so I have no need to buy a separate crop sensor body, especially as I don't consider Canon have made a true replacement for the 7DII yet.   The 150-600c is relatively cheap compared to many alternatives - for example you could likely get 2 or 3 for the cost of the RF 100-500L, although that is a superior optic IMHO.

The 60-600s is made to a higher grade.  It is weather sealed, and weighs about 1kg more than the 150-600, which is OK for me, as I can handle it, but that could be significant to many.  It is a one lens solution, so it would be perfect if one has the capacity to take it but wanted only the one lens, especially for trips involving international travel - e.g. on safari to the Masai Mara, or Antarctica.