Close Menu

    The Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z is the “Sharpest Zoom Ever”

    By Updated:36 Comments Canon Reviews 2 Mins Read

    Bryan at The-Digital-Picture is working through a review of the Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM Z Lens. He has added the test results and thinks this is the sharpest zoom that Canon has ever made. Considering some of the gems of the Canon lineup, that’s a very impressive claim. We compared the MTFs on this lens against others, and you can read my writeup about it all here.

    The Z lens’s MTF charts are optimistic, but the lab tests are incredible. This may be the sharpest interchangeable zoom lens ever, rivaling the Canon RF 100-300mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens (compare them with a 2x mounted).

    Wide open at f/2.8, this lens is razor-sharp across the entire image circle at all focal lengths. Aside from modest peripheral shading clearing, stopping down produces little image quality improvement, and none is needed. This lens is optically impressive.

    https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-70-200mm-F2-8-L-IS-USM-Z-Lens.aspx#ImageQuality

    Indeed, if you look at the raw performance with extenders, the 70-200 gives the 100-300 a run for its money at 70-200 with a 2x extender and 100-300 with a 1.4x extender.

    This comparison can be found here.

    As well if you compare the 70-200 with a 1.4x extender to the native performance of the 100-300mm there’s not much difference between 280mm with the 70-200 and the 100-300mm natively. You can see that comparison here. This one is a little of a surprise to me because I didn’t think the two would be that close. There seems to be more CA with the 70-200 but that would clean up rather easily. It does tend to tell you that any small deviation in the MTFs is very hard to see on actual images.

    In other words, as we told you when we were looking at the MTFs, this lens rocks.

    If you haven’t got this lens yet, you should if you were sitting on the fence waiting. Yes, it’s expensive but in this case, it’s well deserved.

    RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z – White

    RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z – Black

    Source: The-Digital-Picture

    When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works.

    Go to discussion...

    36 comments

    1. Not sure I agree with Bryan's conclusion. Looking at Bryan's results, the RF 70-200/2.8 Z is a small step up from the RF 70-200/2.8, and the RF 100-300/2.8 is a small step up from the 70-200 Z; the relative steps appear to be about the same size. Those results are consistent with the MTF comparison (which you nicely wrote up).
    2. Not sure I agree with Bryan's conclusion. Looking at Bryan's results, the RF 70-200/2.8 Z is a small step up from the RF 70-200/2.8, and the RF 100-300/2.8 is a small step up from the 70-200 Z; the relative steps appear to be about the same size. Those results are consistent with the MTF comparison (which you nicely wrote up).

      I can't believe how it compares to the 28-70 f/2L at 70mm f/2.8. It really outperforms in every way including abberations. Time for a version II!
    3. I think the most astonishing about the 70-200 Z is its sharpness when fitted with an extender, especially with the 2X extender.
      All the other 70-200 don't stand a chance against the Z version.
      I don't need this lens at all, but tell it my GAS...;)
    6. I think the most astonishing about the 70-200 Z is its sharpness when fitted with an extender, especially with the 2X extender.
      All the other 70-200 don't stand a chance against the Z version.
      I don't need this lens at all, but tell it my GAS...;)
      Add to that that it's quite as light as the previous version with internal zoom... well, it may be not GAS, it may be just some good reasons ;)
    7. No, I don't want one, but I may have moved ever so slightly towards thinking about it at least.
      That's where I'm sitting. I don't use the RF 70-200/2.8 much, and I like the compact (retracted) size. When I do use it, it's paired with either the 24-105/2.8 or just the 28/2.8 'in case' but either way I prefer the smaller size because in those cases I am bringing the 70-200/2.8 because I don't want to bring the 100-300/2.8.

      But...the very good performance of the 70-200/2.8 Z with the 1.4x TC has me thinking that in cases where I want smaller size and am willing to give up a stop of light (but not the up to 2 stops with the 100-500) could be a good use case for the 70-200 Z. I'm just not convinced I'd use it frequently enough to justify the cost (though the 'upgrade cost' from the RF 70-200/2.8 would only be <$1500 including the RRS replacement foot).
    10. Going by The Digital Picture, it crushes the Sony 70-200 II as well.

      No, I don't want one, but I may have moved ever so slightly towards thinking about it at least.
      Yes, impressive. I thought that the Sony previously held the crown for sharpest 70-200. I get tempted until I start thinking about a use case (for me) in which my other options--the compact 70-200, primes, and, yes, the 100-500L--are excellent.

      This lens would simply gather dust in my kit, so I'm good.
    11. I only got the RF100-500 because the RF70-200/2.8 didn't accept TCs. My EF setup was EF70-200/2.8 + 1.4x + 2x TCs but the AF/image quality wasn't great with the 2x TC
      No regrets getting the RF100-500 or the RF70-200/2.8 but if I was starting from scratch or copying from my EF setup then RF70-200/2.8 Z + RF1.4x and RF2x would be a good option

      RF70-200/2.8 Z => same internal zoom as EF version so equivalent as compatible with TCs as long as the retractability wasn't a primary requirement.
      RF70-200/2.8 Z + 1.4x => close enough sharpness to RF100-300/2.8 but lose a stop but huge price and size advantage
      RF70-200/2.8 Z + 2x => 140-400/5.6. Not quite the same range as RF100-500 (or EF100-400 aperture range) but basically equivalent to my EF setup and saves the cost of the RF100-500

      Can the 1.4x and 2x TCs be stacked?
    13. Not sure I agree with Bryan's conclusion. Looking at Bryan's results, the RF 70-200/2.8 Z is a small step up from the RF 70-200/2.8, and the RF 100-300/2.8 is a small step up from the 70-200 Z; the relative steps appear to be about the same size. Those results are consistent with the MTF comparison (which you nicely wrote up).
      Well when looking at image comparisons that small setup looks much bigger than what we're used to see for lenses so close in time.
    16. I checked the charts. I do not think there would be any noticeable difference in real-world photography between this and the earlier zoom lens.
      Absolutely agree. For me, at least, decisions on lenses at this level (>$1500) are not based on IQ (they’re pretty must all at least very good if not excellent), but on their primary attributes, mainly focal length and aperture.

      It doesn’t really matter that the 100-300/2.8 has very slightly higher MTF lines or is very slightly sharper than the 70-200/2.8 (either of them) on test chart images. It matters that the one is f/2.8 at 300mm and the others are not.
    17. Absolutely agree. For me, at least, decisions on lenses at this level (>$1500) are not based on IQ (they’re pretty must all at least very good if not excellent), but on their primary attributes, mainly focal length and aperture.

      It doesn’t really matter that the 100-300/2.8 has very slightly higher MTF lines or is very slightly sharper than the 70-200/2.8 (either of them) on test chart images. It matters that the one is f/2.8 at 300mm and the others are not.

      That's awesome, you can use EF gen 1 lenses without seeing any the difference, I'm jealous.
      In the meanwhile, I'll be happily recording 4K stabilised footage with little noise less weight and damn sharp.
      But hey, I could do it with a 500$ used 70-200 and a 2000D and no one would see the difference on their smartphones.
      I do.
    18. That's awesome, you can use EF gen 1 lenses without seeing any the difference, I'm jealous.
      In the meanwhile, I'll be happily recording 4K stabilised footage with little noise less weight and damn sharp.
      But hey, I could do it with a 500$ used 70-200 and a 2000D and no one would see the difference on their smartphones.
      I do.
      Thanks, but current(ish) lenses. Hyperbole is fun, though.

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment