Debating between f2.8 and f4 version of 70-200 RF

[ignoic]

Going to Japan soon, and I need to get 70-200 for my new R body (I don’t have the EF to adapt, and the 70-200 range is perfect for my needs). There are tons of used ones for huge discounts, but the price difference is around the same. I’ve watched so many YouTube videos about how the f4 is better, and while I do travel a lot, I also am frequently shooting low light, music venues and the like. Is the extra stop worth it for the weight and cost? I never really shoot wildlife, but I do portraiture quite often, semi professionally. The glass quality isn’t important unless there are several aberrations or distortions, I trust canon’s L glass. Sorry if this isn’t how I’m supposed to post, I’m new to this subreddit and Reddit in general.

Summary: F4 or F2.8 RF 70-200? Price - Factors in but I’m in the position to shell out the extra if it’s worth it Light - I don’t necessarily need the extra stop, I know it can be nice but is it okay to just save the money? Use-case - Going to travel with it, but also do event shooting in low light (music venues), don’t really do wildlife Glass - I don’t really care if one is sharper or not

[shadowsports]

Greetings,

This decision comes down to budget and need.  I enjoy the extra stop of the RF Trinity.  I don't use it as much on my RF 15-35, but it has proven itself invaluable on the RF 24-70 and 70-200.  When you're inside and its dark, the extra stop is helpful.  No one can make this choice for you.    

[wq9nsc]

I agree with Rick that when you are shooting in low light, the extra stop is worth it.  Certainly the f4 version is lighter and less expensive AND current sensors are better with higher ISO operation BUT the f2.8 always gives you the option of cutting the required ISO in half from what the f4 needs with the same shutter speed.  And no matter how good the sensor, image quality is still better when you keep the ISO as low as practical.

And when subject motion determines minimum shutter speed required, the best IS system in the world is useless so you often can't compensate for a narrower aperture with a slower shutter speed.

A good lens is something you will keep for a long time, much longer than a camera body when you make the right choice.  If the budget allows, you will love shooting with the f2.8 instead.

Rodger

[FloridaDrafter]

I am in total agreement with Rick and Rodger. However, I shoot a lot in low light with my f/2.8 and f/1.2 lenses, particularly night landscapes and sky, not stars, but moonlit cloudy skies. My profile selfie was taken by the light of a full moon 🙂

If you can afford it and see low light in your future, even occasionally, these 2.8 and 1.2 lenses are well worth it. One thing I've noticed about the RF L glass is they are a little sharper wide open compared to their EF L counterparts, there is still a "sweet spot" but closer to wide open. It's just nice glass and I don't regret the extra investment.

Newton