The Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z is the “Sharpest Zoom Ever”
- Thread starter Richard CR
- Start date
Upvote
0
It's typical forum gatekeeping. How dare Canon make it possible for anyone to pay $3000 for the 'sharpest zoom lens ever' even though they're not the top-notch photographer that some people think they are.
Upvote
0
What impresses me most is the price - yikes. From what I can gather it's now the priciest 70-200/2.8 in existence (at least in Europe). A 3600 Euro lens that I long considered to be essential in every journalistic photographer's bag. Good on Canon to still sell the "old" RF2.8 though, although it's not that much better of a deal.
Even though I would like the ability to use a TC from time to time on my RF70-200/2.8, it comes at such a premium, that I honestly don't think I would swallow the difference after I've sold mine.
Even though I would like the ability to use a TC from time to time on my RF70-200/2.8, it comes at such a premium, that I honestly don't think I would swallow the difference after I've sold mine.
Upvote
0
The nice thing is that photographer can still use the MK1 from 1996 if they deem it too expensive.
Compare the sharpness to Sony G master and you'll understand that it's well worth the price compared to many other lenses including any competitors.
Upvote
0
Has anyone compared the new 70-200mm f2.8 Z to the equivalent GM MKII? I used to own the GM up until recently and its a stellar performer even on 61mp. In my local market the Z costs £3449 vs £2479 for the Sony, even if the Z is the better lens I doubt its nearly £1000 better.
Upvote
0
I got mine today. It\'s a really nice lens. Not sure its any better than the old 70-200mm though, image quality wise. Even on an overcast day I was able to keep my shutter speeds really fast. I have rented the old 70-200 f/2.8 in the past and this one handles a bit better. No telescoping zoom keeps it balanced better I think. IBIS might be a bit better as well but I had the original R5 with the rental and now I have the R5 Mark II so hard to say if its the camera or lens. Anyways here are some photos I took with it today - https://www.flickr.com/photos/46506981@N03/albums/72177720321970523
Upvote
0
I can confirm that my non-IS EF 70-200 f2.8 L still works as a charm on the R6, and on a such moderate mpx camera is sharp enough for any pro use even wide open
Upvote
0
I got my 70-200 Z on monday and I was instantly impressed by its sharpness and bokeh. I had the old RF 70-200 2.8 for about two years and although I liked it a lot I always thought that it could be a little sharper especially in the outer areas (I admit that I like pixel peeping). The new one obviously takes a little more space in the bag, but on the plus side the handling is better.
Attachments
Upvote
0
Something I am curious about, is the front element (lens) larger on this version than the non-Z 2.8? I've noticed the filter is larger than the other one but that does not indicate a larger front element specifically. Anyone have both that could measure, or point me to a site that has this information, Google seems to fail me.
Upvote
0
Canon seems to be keeping both the Z and the VCM series the same external size, so filter size isn't saying much about the front element in this case. I don't have a real answer to your question, sorry.
Upvote
0
The 70-200 Z has a noticeable border between the front element and the filter threading, the original 70-200 does not.
Upvote
0
I am really trying to decide if I want to get a Z and keep my older 70-200 2.8 for my BU R3 or for when my son is using it as a second shooter at events or if I just save the cash and get a second non-Z for the dual setup since they are on sale right now.
Upvote
0
