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

#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).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#3
neuroanatomist said:
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).
Click to expand...

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!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
#4
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...;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Upvote 0
#7
Del Paso said:
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...;)
Click to expand...
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 ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#8
Canon Rumors Guy said:
No, I don't want one, but I may have moved ever so slightly towards thinking about it at least.
Click to expand...
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).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#11
Canon Rumors Guy said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#12
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?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#14
neuroanatomist said:
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).
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#17
sanj said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
#18
neuroanatomist said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#19
Slasheal said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thanks, but current(ish) lenses. Hyperbole is fun, though.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Canon Rumors
Stock Notice: Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z at B&H Photo
Replies
1
Views
627
freejay
F
Richard CR
Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM Z “Sharpest Zoom Ever”
Replies
0
Views
2K
Richard CR
Richard CR
Canon Rumors
Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z joins supply shortage list
Replies
40
Views
4K
vjlex
vjlex
Canon Rumors
Is this the Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z?
Replies
96
Views
10K
EricN
EricN
Canon Rumors
Is the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z coming in two colours?
Replies
69
Views
7K
neuroanatomist
neuroanatomist
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Media
Menu