Will I see a difference upgrading from EF 70-200mm f/2.8 to the RF version?

[Anonymous]

Hello!  I'm new to the forums, but a long time Canon user of 22 years.

I have an older Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 lens. It is the original version before image stabilization came around. I liked this lens on my DSLR for landscape work and other things. But now that I have upgraded to the R5 I'm wondering if an upgraded version of the lens will be any sharper?

My budget is limited to $1500. Do you know if the RF 70-200mm f/4 lens would be any sharper than this old version that I have? I get that I will lose a stop of light, but if this lens is noticeably sharper, it might be worth the tradeoff. I also understand the RF one is smaller and less weight, but the weight of the EF does not bother me at all because the lens is usually on a tripod. So the only thing I am looking for is better image quality.

Thank you for reading this post.

[March411]

Sharper, probably not, the differences would be negligible. Not sure what other components may have an impact on your decision but the EF 70-200mm 2.8 will offer moderately better bokeh if that is required for your photography.

On your R5 the EF 70-200mm 2.8 will not be able to achieve the higher burst rate if that is necessary. I went with the with the RF 70-200mm when I started transitioning my EF lenses to RF but held out until I could swing the f2.8. I still own EF lenses that work perfectly if not better on my R system bodies..  

Here is an older but fairly recent thread on the topic of the RF version of the 70-200mm: https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/EF-RF-Lenses/Canon-rf-70-200-comparison-between-f4-and-f2-8/td-p/...

[Anonymous]

Thank you March411. I shoot landscapes with this lens so burst rate or faster focus is not required. Thank you for the thread, but that is talking about RF f/2.8 versus RF f/4 so it didn't help. My concern is that a lot of photographers on social media say that the original EF version of this lens is not as sharp as the second or third EF version. Some people say it is pretty noticeable between version l and lll. I do not know how true that is but since I hear it a lot I think I needed to check further, which is why I am here since you guys seem to know more than the average person on social media about Canon lenses.

So my thoughts are if mine is the least sharp EF version of this lens, does it make sense that I will see more sharpness with the RF version. Do you know of any online resource that might be able to tell me?

[March411]

Hey Roberto, I understand that the link posted was regarding the RF version as a noted in the link, I thought the information would be helpful. For your application, landscapes and since you already own the lens I really don't think the RF would be worth the investment unless you could use it in other styles of photography.

I guess the real question comes down to how sharp are the images you are producing today. If your eye test is providing you with solid images why pay attention to what others are saying on the net. 

Just note that the lens is end of service so if repair/service is required it could be a challenge.

There is quite a bit of information on all the versions of EF 70-200mm f/2.8 on this site (Link Below) if you do a search. 

Forum search results EF 70-200mm f2.8 

[ebiggs1]

"It is the original version before image stabilization came around..."

Of course you know IS doesn't make a lens sharper. Some even say a non-IS lens is sharper than the IS version. Having and using both with and without IS, I must say I never saw it.

I will say that you might see better IQ with the latest version of the RF model because the lens coating has been improved so much over the years. But you have to keep in mind that all of Canon's 70-200mm lens are very good so improvement will be slight.

[Anonymous]

Thank you March 411. As to your question of how sharp the images are that I am producing today, I feel they could be sharper. I do know that some of this has to do with editing but images I see online taken with an R5 and the RF 70-200mm seem a lot sharper than mine. I work on a 27" Apple monitor, so it's not like I am looking at a small screen to compare. Also I use some RF lenses like the 35mm RF f/1.8 and I feel these are sharper than my EF 70-200mm when I zoom in. This is why I am wondering if I should upgrade. 

I will follow the link you provided. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Thank you ebiggs1. I am aware IS doesn't make a photo sharper but I only mentioned it so you would know which version of the lens I have. Others have told me that mine is the least sharp version of Canon's EF and RF 70-200mm lineup. I do not know how true that is. I don't want to ask at the camera store because they just want to sell me something new.

By latest model with better coating are you talking about the Z version? If so I can not afford that. I can only afford the f/4 version. Or were you saying that about all three of the RF 70-200mm lenses?

Thank you. 

[jrhoffman75]

[ebiggs1]

"By latest model with better coating are you talking about the Z version? "

Well, it only makes sense that the 'latest' lens is always going to be at a minimum as good and probably better. Otherwise why? Whether it be better tolerances or better coating or design, newer tech is as a rule, as they say better.

"I use some RF lenses like the 35mm RF f/1.8 and I feel these are sharper"

I would be shocked if the 35mm wasn't sharper. 35mm seems to be a super easy FL to design as almost every companies 35mm is a top IQ contender. My 35mm f1.4 Sigma Art is the sharpest lens I have ever owned or used.

"Others have told me that mine is the least sharp version of Canon's EF and RF 70-200mm lineup."

If it is first version then, yes, it is likely the least IQ of the bunch. But that is a how much less thing, is it a real world difference or just pixel peeping thing.

" I can not afford that."

The lens you have is always better than the lens you wish you had.

[ebiggs1]

"I do know that some of this has to do with editing but images ..."

I left this for a reply all its own. Post editing is where great photos are made. They are not made in the camera/lens but in editors like Photoshop. on the other hand it is abundantly possible to ruin a good photo, too. I have no idea of your abilities or even what app you use to do your edits but it certainly is a major factor in IQ.

If given the choice of only using Canon's cheapest camera/lens combo and Photoshop or using Canon's top of the line most expensive best quality camera/lens combo they make and never Photoshop, I would take the cheap stuff and Photoshop every, that is 100%, of the time.