Canon RF 70-200 f/4.0 three month review
Jun 8, 2023 10:47:59 #
As a Christmas gift to myself last year, I sold my 5DIV and bought the R5 with the RF 24-105 lens. I had decided that I would keep a few of my EF lenses and use with the adaptor (EF 50 f/1.4, 135 f/2, for example) but I committed to upgrading a few of my EF lenses to RF. One such upgrade was my EF 70-200 f/4 (non-IS). I decided I wanted to move to an RF version for this focal range.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who struggled between getting the f/4 version or the rather more expensive f/2.8 version. I know that the f/2.8 would be an amazing lens and produce shallower DOF and thus creamier bokeh. It would also be one-stop better in low light. So, let me list the factors in my decision to purchase this lens over the f/2.8 version:
1. I shoot mainly landscapes with this lens. I do shoot occasional portraits of family and friends, but the ratio is about 8:1 in favor of landscapes, where having extremely shallow DOF and super creamy bokeh isn't really necessary.
2. On occasions when I do want a creamy background, I find that f/4 does a decent job (I knew this from my EF version). An aperture of f/4, especially at the longer focal lengths, can produce pretty nice bokeh. (I'll attach some images in a later reply as I'm afraid if I attach them now my topic will get moved to gallery.)
3. Weight and Size! I do a lot of backpacking and it helps that this f/4 lens is considerably smaller and lighter than the f/2.8. (It's nearly a pound lighter than the f/2.8.). I mean it is honestly about the same size and weight as the RF 24-105.
4. Low light performance. I know that a 2.8 lens will let in more light and thus be better than an f/4 in low light scenarios, but I considered the fact that my R5, as with most R-cameras, is exceptionally good at higher ISOs. Thus I calculated that, in events where I needed an extra stop, I could easily bump up the ISO 1 stop. In the event I had to shoot at an ISO that produced more noise than I'd like, well there are many programs that can use AI to greatly reduce noise while not impacting sharpness (Topaz, DXO and now even Lightroom).
5. Price. Of course the elephant on the room was the price difference. I had to ask myself the honest question: Is one-stop better worth an additional $1100 given what I mostly shoot? The answer, if I'm being honest, was a resounding NO. Now, if I were a wedding photographer who was making money, and the extra stop would produce a bit nicer background blur, then I might consider the f/2.8 version.
After having this lens for about 3 months, and having used it in a variety of situations, including landscapes, people, and events, including low light events, I have been very happy with the results. I also have been backpacking with this lens on numerous occasion and that's when I really appreciate the very light, compact design of this lens. It's really quite amazing that they were able to build this focal range, with such great IQ, in such a compact form factor. Now, am I suggesting that this is a better lens than the f/2.8 version? Absolutely not. However, for my use cases, I have zero regrets saving the $1100 and getting this lens over the f/2.8. By the way, with the money I saved buying this lens vice the f/2.8, I was able to buy a refurbished RF 85 f/2 and still had money left over!
If you're on the fence about getting this lens or the f/2.8, I hope my observations are helpful. Just ask yourself how important is having a little creamier bokeh and better low light performance and how often would that really be a factor? Remember, the R-cameras do very well in low light situations and higher ISO so that the extra stop in low light events isn't as important as it might have once been.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who struggled between getting the f/4 version or the rather more expensive f/2.8 version. I know that the f/2.8 would be an amazing lens and produce shallower DOF and thus creamier bokeh. It would also be one-stop better in low light. So, let me list the factors in my decision to purchase this lens over the f/2.8 version:
1. I shoot mainly landscapes with this lens. I do shoot occasional portraits of family and friends, but the ratio is about 8:1 in favor of landscapes, where having extremely shallow DOF and super creamy bokeh isn't really necessary.
2. On occasions when I do want a creamy background, I find that f/4 does a decent job (I knew this from my EF version). An aperture of f/4, especially at the longer focal lengths, can produce pretty nice bokeh. (I'll attach some images in a later reply as I'm afraid if I attach them now my topic will get moved to gallery.)
3. Weight and Size! I do a lot of backpacking and it helps that this f/4 lens is considerably smaller and lighter than the f/2.8. (It's nearly a pound lighter than the f/2.8.). I mean it is honestly about the same size and weight as the RF 24-105.
4. Low light performance. I know that a 2.8 lens will let in more light and thus be better than an f/4 in low light scenarios, but I considered the fact that my R5, as with most R-cameras, is exceptionally good at higher ISOs. Thus I calculated that, in events where I needed an extra stop, I could easily bump up the ISO 1 stop. In the event I had to shoot at an ISO that produced more noise than I'd like, well there are many programs that can use AI to greatly reduce noise while not impacting sharpness (Topaz, DXO and now even Lightroom).
5. Price. Of course the elephant on the room was the price difference. I had to ask myself the honest question: Is one-stop better worth an additional $1100 given what I mostly shoot? The answer, if I'm being honest, was a resounding NO. Now, if I were a wedding photographer who was making money, and the extra stop would produce a bit nicer background blur, then I might consider the f/2.8 version.
After having this lens for about 3 months, and having used it in a variety of situations, including landscapes, people, and events, including low light events, I have been very happy with the results. I also have been backpacking with this lens on numerous occasion and that's when I really appreciate the very light, compact design of this lens. It's really quite amazing that they were able to build this focal range, with such great IQ, in such a compact form factor. Now, am I suggesting that this is a better lens than the f/2.8 version? Absolutely not. However, for my use cases, I have zero regrets saving the $1100 and getting this lens over the f/2.8. By the way, with the money I saved buying this lens vice the f/2.8, I was able to buy a refurbished RF 85 f/2 and still had money left over!
If you're on the fence about getting this lens or the f/2.8, I hope my observations are helpful. Just ask yourself how important is having a little creamier bokeh and better low light performance and how often would that really be a factor? Remember, the R-cameras do very well in low light situations and higher ISO so that the extra stop in low light events isn't as important as it might have once been.
Jun 8, 2023 12:25:44 #
Jun 8, 2023 12:57:21 #
PHRubin wrote:
Glad you're happy with the decision.
Yes, I'm happy. Posted this to possibly help others trying to decide between the f/4 or the f/2.8 versions. I know they are both great lenses.
Jun 9, 2023 05:22:23 #
cullumjt
Loc: Central Florida
Thank you for posting this excellent information. I am using my adapted ef24-105 on my R5. The rf version was my next one, after the 100-500 which I received yesterday. Your post helps me make an expensive decision.
Jun 9, 2023 06:01:15 #
I have the same lens for the same reasons as you and I am very happy with it.
Jun 9, 2023 06:59:53 #
f4 is no slouch for bokeh; I just pull the subject farther from the background to make it more out of focus with my 24-120 f4. You made the right choice!
Jun 9, 2023 09:53:42 #
I remember when you were agonizing over the choice. The size and weight make it a joy to use not to mention the IQ ranks among the best. It's my favorite hiking lens. Sometimes I'll put a 50 1.8 in my pocket in case I want a wider angle. I've been impressed with its ability for closeups too. I shoot a lot of wildflowers. You always have the 135 2L when you want to make magic, shallow depth of field images.
Jun 9, 2023 10:32:34 #
I too choose the RF F4 70-200 lens over the F2.8 lens. I also mostly use it for landscapes where it is stopped down to F5.6 or F8. My R6MII has very low noise at ISO 800 so noise is not an issue for me. Also the $1100 savings paid for a field trip to the Michigan UP.
Jun 9, 2023 18:02:07 #
Basil wrote:
As a Christmas gift to myself last year, I sold my... (show quote)
Great review, thank you for sharing.
Jun 9, 2023 18:58:45 #
MountainDave wrote:
I remember when you were agonizing over the choice. The size and weight make it a joy to use not to mention the IQ ranks among the best. It's my favorite hiking lens. Sometimes I'll put a 50 1.8 in my pocket in case I want a wider angle. I've been impressed with its ability for closeups too. I shoot a lot of wildflowers. You always have the 135 2L when you want to make magic, shallow depth of field images.
Funny you mention hiking. Wife and I just went for a 5 mile hike in the mountains today and this was one of two lenses I took. The other being the RF 24-105
Jun 9, 2023 19:09:22 #
Jun 9, 2023 21:26:37 #
Mickey Jetpur wrote:
Thanks,I am going to get the F4.
Not much to dislike about this lens.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.