Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Two new RF lenses - first impressions
Mar 17, 2023 17:40:39   #
Basil Loc: New Mexico
 
I recently sold some of my EF cameras and gear because I wanted to get an RF mount 70-200 lens.

As I posted here earlier, my struggle was whether to get the lighter, much less expensive f/4.0 version, or spend $1200-$1300 more for the f/2.8 version. The fact the sensor on my R5 is so good made me really struggle with whether upgrading to the f/2.8 is worth that much more money (to me).

Most of my shooting (80% at least) is landscapes where I would mostly be stopping down anyway. I know in cases where I’m shooting portraits, the f/2.8 would yield nicer, creamier bokeh, and it would be better in low light but is it $1300 worth of better bokeh given I’m not a pro?

My heart told me, “just suck it up and get the 2.8,” but my “head” said, “you don’t need the 2.8." With the high-ISO capabilities of my R5 I could probably get fine results with the f/4 version in low light situations. The f/4 version is also smaller, lighter (for hiking) and of course much less $$.

My head won and I just took delivery of the RF70-200 f/4 yesterday. For the amount of money I saved by not getting the 2.8 version, I ended up also buying the 85 f/2, which was delivered today.

I have not had much opportunity to do any serious shooting with either yet, but I do like the compact size and very light weight of the 70-200, which will make it easier to carry in a backpack when hiking. I've only shot a couple of the doggie with the 85 f/2, but so far I like it. Very sharp focus and the background blur at f/2 is very good (not as good as a $2500 85 f/1.2, but still very good.)

Both lenses, although light, feel well made and solid. The lens hood on the 70-200 has a nice distinctive "click" when it's installed and locked into place. The hood doesn't have a window for turning filters like the 2.8 version does, but since the hood isn't too deep I can still turn a CP filter with my index finger if need be. With the hood on backwards, it is very similar in size and weight to my RF24-105 (slightly bigger around) so that it stores nicely it in my shoulder bag.

The 85mm f/2 is not an L lens, but still feels solid and well made. I shot a few test images of our Huskey in kinda low house lighting and I'm quite happy with the results. My one disappointment with this lens so far is that Canon didn't see fit to include a lens hood. The Canon lens hood for this lens is $50! Fortunately, there is a Vello replacement for $12 which has good reviews.

Reply
Mar 17, 2023 22:38:18   #
gwilliams6
 
Basil wrote:
I recently sold some of my EF cameras and gear because I wanted to get an RF mount 70-200 lens.

As I posted here earlier, my struggle was whether to get the lighter, much less expensive f/4.0 version, or spend $1200-$1300 more for the f/2.8 version. The fact the sensor on my R5 is so good made me really struggle with whether upgrading to the f/2.8 is worth that much more money (to me).

Most of my shooting (80% at least) is landscapes where I would mostly be stopping down anyway. I know in cases where I’m shooting portraits, the f/2.8 would yield nicer, creamier bokeh, and it would be better in low light but is it $1300 worth of better bokeh given I’m not a pro?

My heart told me, “just suck it up and get the 2.8,” but my “head” said, “you don’t need the 2.8." With the high-ISO capabilities of my R5 I could probably get fine results with the f/4 version in low light situations. The f/4 version is also smaller, lighter (for hiking) and of course much less $$.

My head won and I just took delivery of the RF70-200 f/4 yesterday. For the amount of money I saved by not getting the 2.8 version, I ended up also buying the 85 f/2, which was delivered today.

I have not had much opportunity to do any serious shooting with either yet, but I do like the compact size and very light weight of the 70-200, which will make it easier to carry in a backpack when hiking. I've only shot a couple of the doggie with the 85 f/2, but so far I like it. Very sharp focus and the background blur at f/2 is very good (not as good as a $2500 85 f/1.2, but still very good.)

Both lenses, although light, feel well made and solid. The lens hood on the 70-200 has a nice distinctive "click" when it's installed and locked into place. The hood doesn't have a window for turning filters like the 2.8 version does, but since the hood isn't too deep I can still turn a CP filter with my index finger if need be. With the hood on backwards, it is very similar in size and weight to my RF24-105 (slightly bigger around) so that it stores nicely it in my shoulder bag.

The 85mm f/2 is not an L lens, but still feels solid and well made. I shot a few test images of our Huskey in kinda low house lighting and I'm quite happy with the results. My one disappointment with this lens so far is that Canon didn't see fit to include a lens hood. The Canon lens hood for this lens is $50! Fortunately, there is a Vello replacement for $12 which has good reviews.
I recently sold some of my EF cameras and gear bec... (show quote)


There is another current thread in UHH on Canon not including lens hoods with some lenses. IMHO this longtime pro and Canon user for 40 years thinks that is just being cheap.

Cheers and best to you and your gear. Yes you dont need that 70-200 mm f2.8 for that much more money, when you can have two lenses that fit your needs.

Reply
Mar 17, 2023 23:05:11   #
BudsOwl Loc: Upstate NY and New England
 
Basil wrote:
I recently sold some of my EF cameras and gear because I wanted to get an RF mount 70-200 lens.

As I posted here earlier, my struggle was whether to get the lighter, much less expensive f/4.0 version, or spend $1200-$1300 more for the f/2.8 version. The fact the sensor on my R5 is so good made me really struggle with whether upgrading to the f/2.8 is worth that much more money (to me).

Most of my shooting (80% at least) is landscapes where I would mostly be stopping down anyway. I know in cases where I’m shooting portraits, the f/2.8 would yield nicer, creamier bokeh, and it would be better in low light but is it $1300 worth of better bokeh given I’m not a pro?

My heart told me, “just suck it up and get the 2.8,” but my “head” said, “you don’t need the 2.8." With the high-ISO capabilities of my R5 I could probably get fine results with the f/4 version in low light situations. The f/4 version is also smaller, lighter (for hiking) and of course much less $$.

My head won and I just took delivery of the RF70-200 f/4 yesterday. For the amount of money I saved by not getting the 2.8 version, I ended up also buying the 85 f/2, which was delivered today.

I have not had much opportunity to do any serious shooting with either yet, but I do like the compact size and very light weight of the 70-200, which will make it easier to carry in a backpack when hiking. I've only shot a couple of the doggie with the 85 f/2, but so far I like it. Very sharp focus and the background blur at f/2 is very good (not as good as a $2500 85 f/1.2, but still very good.)

Both lenses, although light, feel well made and solid. The lens hood on the 70-200 has a nice distinctive "click" when it's installed and locked into place. The hood doesn't have a window for turning filters like the 2.8 version does, but since the hood isn't too deep I can still turn a CP filter with my index finger if need be. With the hood on backwards, it is very similar in size and weight to my RF24-105 (slightly bigger around) so that it stores nicely it in my shoulder bag.

The 85mm f/2 is not an L lens, but still feels solid and well made. I shot a few test images of our Huskey in kinda low house lighting and I'm quite happy with the results. My one disappointment with this lens so far is that Canon didn't see fit to include a lens hood. The Canon lens hood for this lens is $50! Fortunately, there is a Vello replacement for $12 which has good reviews.
I recently sold some of my EF cameras and gear bec... (show quote)


I have the RF 70-200 F4 L, and am ambivalent about the 85 mm F2. Really want a macro that will allow me to get at least 1:1 shots so will probably go for the RF 100 mm F 2.8 L at twice the cost of the 85 mm. Got half the money saved now and if I don’t get hit heavily by the fed income tax I can probably get the 100 by July.
Bud

Reply
 
 
Mar 17, 2023 23:17:18   #
Basil Loc: New Mexico
 
gwilliams6 wrote:
There is another current thread in UHH on Canon not including lens hoods with some lenses. IMHO this longtime pro and Canon user for 40 years thinks that is just being cheap.

Cheers and best to you and your gear. Yes you dont need that 70-200 mm f2.8 for that much more money, when you can have two lenses that fit your needs.


Seems you only get a hood included with the L lenses. Thank goodness there are third party alternatives.

Reply
Mar 17, 2023 23:20:54   #
Basil Loc: New Mexico
 
BudsOwl wrote:
I have the RF 70-200 F4 L, and am ambivalent about the 85 mm F2. Really want a macro that will allow me to get at least 1:1 shots so will probably go for the RF 100 mm F 2.8 L at twice the cost of the 85 mm. Got half the money saved now and if I don’t get hit heavily by the fed income tax I can probably get the 100 by July.
Bud


I got the 85 mainly to have a good portrait focal length with decent subject separation and bokeh. The f2 isn’t super in that regard but it is pretty good. The macro capability is just a nice addition.

If I ever decide to get serious about macro, the RF100 would likely be the way I’d go too.

Reply
Mar 18, 2023 10:53:54   #
MountainDave
 
The 70-200 is a joy to take hiking. It's only about 1.5 ounces lighter (8 ounces including the adapter) than the EF version but the compact size makes all the difference when it's slung over my shoulder for long distances. Sometimes I throw a RF 50 1.8 in the bag if I think I'll need a wider angle. For more strenuous hikes or climbs, I use it with a RP instead of the R5. The combo is less than 3 lbs.

Reply
Mar 18, 2023 11:49:29   #
Basil Loc: New Mexico
 
MountainDave wrote:
The 70-200 is a joy to take hiking. It's only about 1.5 ounces lighter (8 ounces including the adapter) than the EF version but the compact size makes all the difference when it's slung over my shoulder for long distances. Sometimes I throw a RF 50 1.8 in the bag if I think I'll need a wider angle. For more strenuous hikes or climbs, I use it with a RP instead of the R5. The combo is less than 3 lbs.


The relative size and weight compared to the f/2.8 version is one of the primary reasons I decided on the f/4 version in lieu of the 2.8. I know that having f 2.8 would be nice in certain situations, but for the frequency of occasions I would really "need" that f/2.8 I couldn't justify the additional cost. Besides which, I have a EF 50mm f1/4 and a EF 135 f/2, plus with the money saved over the 2.8, I just bought the RF 85 f/2 for situations where I need a little wider aperture.

Reply
 
 
Mar 18, 2023 11:51:32   #
AntonioReyna Loc: Los Angeles, California
 
I have the RF 70/200 F/4 and love it. Small, light and very sharp.

Reply
Mar 18, 2023 12:17:16   #
PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA
 
When I got my R7 with 18-150 lens it also came without a hood. Having had Vello products that were superior to Canon's in the past, I didn't hesitate to get the Vello hood.

Reply
Mar 18, 2023 12:32:07   #
Basil Loc: New Mexico
 
PHRubin wrote:
When I got my R7 with 18-150 lens it also came without a hood. Having had Vello products that were superior to Canon's in the past, I didn't hesitate to get the Vello hood.


Most likely what I'll do too. I've had other Vello products (not hoods) and found them to be decent quality.

Reply
Mar 18, 2023 12:44:15   #
AntonioReyna Loc: Los Angeles, California
 
My same kit came with the Canon hood.

Reply
 
 
Mar 18, 2023 14:09:54   #
Architect1776 Loc: In my mind
 
Basil wrote:
I recently sold some of my EF cameras and gear because I wanted to get an RF mount 70-200 lens.

As I posted here earlier, my struggle was whether to get the lighter, much less expensive f/4.0 version, or spend $1200-$1300 more for the f/2.8 version. The fact the sensor on my R5 is so good made me really struggle with whether upgrading to the f/2.8 is worth that much more money (to me).

Most of my shooting (80% at least) is landscapes where I would mostly be stopping down anyway. I know in cases where I’m shooting portraits, the f/2.8 would yield nicer, creamier bokeh, and it would be better in low light but is it $1300 worth of better bokeh given I’m not a pro?

My heart told me, “just suck it up and get the 2.8,” but my “head” said, “you don’t need the 2.8." With the high-ISO capabilities of my R5 I could probably get fine results with the f/4 version in low light situations. The f/4 version is also smaller, lighter (for hiking) and of course much less $$.

My head won and I just took delivery of the RF70-200 f/4 yesterday. For the amount of money I saved by not getting the 2.8 version, I ended up also buying the 85 f/2, which was delivered today.

I have not had much opportunity to do any serious shooting with either yet, but I do like the compact size and very light weight of the 70-200, which will make it easier to carry in a backpack when hiking. I've only shot a couple of the doggie with the 85 f/2, but so far I like it. Very sharp focus and the background blur at f/2 is very good (not as good as a $2500 85 f/1.2, but still very good.)

Both lenses, although light, feel well made and solid. The lens hood on the 70-200 has a nice distinctive "click" when it's installed and locked into place. The hood doesn't have a window for turning filters like the 2.8 version does, but since the hood isn't too deep I can still turn a CP filter with my index finger if need be. With the hood on backwards, it is very similar in size and weight to my RF24-105 (slightly bigger around) so that it stores nicely it in my shoulder bag.

The 85mm f/2 is not an L lens, but still feels solid and well made. I shot a few test images of our Huskey in kinda low house lighting and I'm quite happy with the results. My one disappointment with this lens so far is that Canon didn't see fit to include a lens hood. The Canon lens hood for this lens is $50! Fortunately, there is a Vello replacement for $12 which has good reviews.
I recently sold some of my EF cameras and gear bec... (show quote)



Reply
Mar 18, 2023 14:14:18   #
MountainDave
 
Basil wrote:
The relative size and weight compared to the f/2.8 version is one of the primary reasons I decided on the f/4 version in lieu of the 2.8. I know that having f 2.8 would be nice in certain situations, but for the frequency of occasions I would really "need" that f/2.8 I couldn't justify the additional cost. Besides which, I have a EF 50mm f1/4 and a EF 135 f/2, plus with the money saved over the 2.8, I just bought the RF 85 f/2 for situations where I need a little wider aperture.


I have a 135 2L also and I figure it negates the need for the 2.8 for me. If I were a pro wedding photographer, I'd have a 70-200 2.8 but it would probably be in addition to a f/4. The R5 definitely improves the AF on the 135 and the IBIS helps too. I have preordered the RF 135 1.8L IS. It should be even more useful for me. It will also be my first RF L prime. Interestingly, Vanessa Joy, who does truly beautiful portraiture and wedding work, calls the 135 her "secret weapon."

Reply
Mar 18, 2023 16:37:39   #
Basil Loc: New Mexico
 
Your 85 f/2 or the 70-200? My 70-200 came with the hood but not the 85 f/2. Did you get a package deal ?

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.