RF70-200mm F4 L IS USM vs RF70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM

[Cantrell]

All,

I have been considering buying the RF70-200mm F2.8 lens and then I came across the RF70-200mm F4 lens. Besides the F stop the F2.8 lens has 1 more element and 2 more groups than the F4. The F4 you can shoot closer,  weighs less than the F2.8 and is $1200 less expensive. Is having 1 less F stop worth $1200? How much of an advantage would the F2.8 have over the F4 in low light conditions. Would adjusting your shutter speed or ISO compensate for the difference in 1 F stop in low light? I am just a hobbyist. Have I missed something.

I am very interested in the groups opinions about these lens.

Thank you

[March411]

Hello Cantrell,

Either of those lenses will serve you well. I picked up the RF70-200mm F2.8 after renting both of the lenses you noted in your post. I purchased the f2.8 solely because I do shoot some indoor sports and it just gives me a little more light and keeps the ISO in check.

If I had to do it over I would probably pick up the f4, the 2.8 doesn't get enough use in hindsight justify the additional expense and the IQ is sharp with both lenses. I also shoot the RF24-240mm F4-6.3 quite a bit when I travel and frequently in low light when shooting landscapes. Most of my frames are shot  @ f4 at 24mm and the noise is very reasonable. 

Unless you are planning on shooting a bunch of low light I would lean towards the f4. 

[Cantrell]

Marc,

Thank you for this information and your experience with F2.8. I have the 24-240 lens and I have tried it in low light. In low light I would like to have a consist F stop.

Reese

[March411]

---

@Cantrell wrote:

I have the 24-240 lens and I have tried it in low light. In low light I would like to have a consist F stop.

Agreed, the fixed f stop would be a significant bonus!

[ebiggs1 · Accepted solution]

"Is having 1 less F stop worth $1200? How much of an advantage would the F2.8 have over the F4 in low light conditions."

Here's the deal, to answer the first question that is totally up to you. To me I always go for the f2.8 constant aperture lenses if I can. You see the laws of physics make gaining that one stop a big deal. It doesn't just happen without a lot of effort on the part of Canon's engineers. However, you are fixated on only one aspect of the advantage.

Will it help with low light shooting. That is your second question and that answer is probably no, but it might. Way most of the time one stop is neither a deal maker or deal breaker. However, that is very short sighted since the f2.8 will be a brighter lens all the time. It can have a more shallow depth of field if wanted. Possible faster SS along with a lower ISO and faster AF. Most of the time the f2.8L lens will have better everything inside as they are generally aimed at the more pro end of the market.

This is not to say the f4 version isn't a good lens as it is. I had one but sold it off long ago. It serves the market it is designed for quite well. All my main use lenses are f2.8 aperture 'L' lenses. The one exception non-L lens is my Sigma Sport 120-300mm but even it is a constant f2.8 aperture lens.

So, is it worth $1200 bucks? You decide, it is to me, but you really can't go wrong with either version as they are both very nice lenses.

[Cantrell]

ebiggs1,

Thank you for your comments and the advantages of the constant F2.8 lens. I have the RF28-70mm F2.8 lens. Since I bought that lens it has been on my R6M2 most of the time. That lens is a refurbished Canon lens.