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.

[Anonymous]

Thank you John.  I went to the website and found it very helpful.

Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Thank you ebiggs1. I hope you don't mind but I will reply to both of your replies here.

I think my whole concern is summed up in just one sentence that you said. "Is it a real world difference or just pixel peeping". The website that John Hoffman was kind enough to point out did show a noticeable difference, but that circles back to what you said. I have no idea how zoomed in the diagramed photos are.  

I suppose the 35mm was not the best example. I did borrow my cousin's EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 lens last summer when the kids were rafting and my 70-200mm was at home. Those photos look just as sharp if not sharper than photos with the 70-200mm taken the week before. I was surprised for a lens that was not a premium lens. The 70-200mm seems sharper under 120mm and then goes downhill as I zoom in. I know lenses have their sweet spot, but only 70-120 out of 200mm? That's why I started looking at replacing the EF 70-200mm.

I should have been more specific. I'm sorry. I have been editing with Photoshop for about 30 years, and Lightroom since version 2 first came out. I sell landscape prints to the public and I know I am good at it. I'm sorry, but I am not bragging. For me to say that I am good at something like this is rare, but we all have talents I guess. I am often paid to take senior portraits, and food photos for local restaurants too. But for portraits and food I use primes. Anyway, I have to know editing well. Even after editing photos taken with my most expensive lens, which is the EF 70-200mm, I feel images are not often sharp enough when they are with mid to long focal lengths. With other lenses of mine, even the inexpensive RF 50mm f1.8 they almost always seem sharp enough to print.

Thank you for listening.

[justadude]

I have the same version of the EF 70-200mm F/2.8 L lens.  It's my workhorse lens for athletic events (marathons and triathlons), and does an excellent job.  I did have the opportunity last year to trade off lenses with a fellow photographer at a race for about an hour.  He was using the RF 70-200mm F/2.8 L.  I know you are asking about the RF F/4 version (which I have zero experience with) but here is what both of us noticed when we switched out lenses.  

The RF version was slightly faster to focus.  Not enough that it gave me a reason to want to upgrade.  The EF is still fast enough for what I do.  You said you do landscapes and portraits, so I don't think that will factor in at all, but I'm just trying to give you everything I found.

Weight - It was nice using the lighter weight of the RF when you consider also the weight of the adapter as well as the lens.  You mentioned a tripod for landscapes.  Didn't mention it for portraits, so if you hand hold, that's a nice bonus.

Image Quality - We both compared notes about a week after we edited everything.  We both agreed it was hard to tell the difference on which lens took which photo.  I view these on a 24" screen and I couldn't tell the difference without looking at the EXIF data in Lightroom.  Would the IQ be any different with the F/4 version than what I found with the F/2.8?  I highly doubt it, but check the comparison with the link that John provided.  

I am stumped at your comment about IQ getting worse after 120mm.  I don't notice any difference through the focal range except very minor at the extreme ends.

[ebiggs1]

"I feel images are not often sharp enough ..."

How about posting and unedited raw file on one of the file sharing sites and let a couple of us examine it?  Let us know where it is.

You do shoot raw? Upon import to LR you do lens correction and a small amount of dedicated sharpening? It you only shoot jpg the camera does sharpening of its own and perhaps it is interfering with LR if you do any additional sharpening too. Almost always less is more in post editing.

[SignifDigits]

Thank you for visiting us and sharing and engaging the experts here.  I have neither lens.  I'm not expert on this topic.

I'm curious about some things though, if you don't mind me asking.  Are you satisfied with what you're seeing in manual zoom on the lens via the "One-Shot→enabled (magnify)" feature (and I realize that this might not be supported on your particular lens - hope it is), and then just not happy with sharpness in the RAW file (also assuming you have the lens profile as previously mentioned).  Also, I'm wondering if you've looked at the same images in Canon Digital Professional Photo Professional and LR?  I'm just curious about exploring a) anything that might be "off" a little bit in the lens focusing on your new camera that might be fixed via a trip to the Canon shop, or b) ensuring that you are seeing the same lack of sharpness in Canon and Adobe software.

I have one other question.  What are you shooting with the 70-200?  I'm thinking not landscapes?   Maybe a stupid question but I shoot nearly all landscapes with my RF 15-35mm f2.8 - usually closer to 15mm.  Just curious what you're using your zoom in that range for, as I have a lot to learn.

I'm saving up for/hoping for the Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8LIS USM Z.  I plan to use that for wildlife and outdoor events and think the internal telescoping mechanism is more likely to be durable and sealed long-term (unlike my non-L RF200-800 f6.3-9 which I like a lot (thank you Canon for IS and IBIS!).   I know that 70-200mm is over your budget I know and NOT trying to tell you that's the way to go - just hoping to learn from someone with more experience with a zoom in that range.

[Anonymous]

Thank you ebiggs1. Yes I do shoot raw, not jpeg, and yes I check the lens correction box and often add a light touch of sharpening. I am pretty well versed in editing. I do not have problems with sharp images on my prints for customers with other lenses. It is only this one lens when I zoom in about halfway and farther that I notice it.

I will look to see where I can upload a full size file.
Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Thank you justadude. So if both of the EF and RF lenses were just as sharp as each other, did they both lose some sharpness once you zoomed in halfway and further? Or was the RF sharper at 200mm? That is what I am hoping to find out.

Most of your text was about the RF f2.8 which I cannot afford.

Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Thank you signifdigts. I'm not satisfied with the raw files before and after editing once I zoom out past 120mm. The images are softer than they should be. Yes I have used DPP4 and Lightroom and Photoshop's Camera Raw. I did a lot of trial and error with the images in all three of those before I decided to sign up here. It was a good idea to ask though. I own many lenses but it is just this one that does not seem as sharp with the raw file and after editing and printing. 

Yes I shoot mostly landscapes with this lens. Some photographers like a wide lens, other photographers like the compression with a long focal length in landscapes, especially in the mountains near home. My apologies if that seems stupid. I tried wide lenses for mountain scenery years ago, but the photos were flat and boring. The long focal length also works wonderfully out in the plains as well, except for the slight softness. I do know it is not due to heat rising because in the winter on sub zero days I see the same softness.

I can't answer about the IS and IBIS. I use a tripod so those are always turned off.

Thank you.

[ebiggs1]

" What are you shooting with the 70-200?  I'm thinking not landscapes?"

The 70-200mm zoom makes a wonderful landscape lens especially if you use it vertically. If you don't use one or  never have used one because of the nonsense that only certain lenses are so-called "landscape" lenses you are missing out on a whole new world of photography. To even further the 70-200mm zoom also make a great portrait lens. In fact I switched to it several, I mean, many years ago as my go to portrait lens,

[ebiggs1]

" I own many lenses but it is just this one that does not seem as sharp with the raw file ..."

You may have internal alignment or damage issues. If that is true there won't be any easy fix in post. Let us see an example unedited raw file.

There won't be any fix for rising heat waves either.