Review: Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM by CameraLabs

#22
GreenViper said:
Good review, fair and balanced. Can't quibble with any of his observations.

Have mine on order - looking forward to size and weight. Planning on using it as the alternative lens in my 2 lens/camera set ups - 16-35F4 & 70-200F4 for landscapes & 400 DO II or 100-400 and 70-200 for wildlife. I'd have gone for the 70-200 F2.8 if I was still doing indoor sports and I have the 85 F2 for occasional portraits so the F4 fits my use case perfectly. Suspect it'll be a step up from my 70-200 F4 non-IS which was my first L lens back in the day.
Click to expand...

I have pretty similar considerations for travel, but would probably pair a 15-35 f4 with the 70-200 f2.8 instead. While this combination is about 400g heavier and that the f2.8 is bigger, it allows for portrait shots of family members (which is essentially a 'requirement' :)). This would save having to carry a 85 f2 prime. Besides, based on Gordon Laing's review, it looks like the 2.8 produces a shade better overall IQ at the same aperture.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#23
Random Orbits said:
Canon definitely had a different strategy for its RF 70-200s than what it had with EF or what Nikon has done with with its Z 70-200. Gone are compatibility with extenders and constant length, and instead what Canon produced were variable length lenses that are compact and lighter. I think I like the tradeoff that Canon made. Even with the EF variants, I rarely used extenders with the 70-200s. If I needed more reach, I chose the 100-400.
Click to expand...
I don't use >200mm often enough to justify spending >$2,000 on another white lens. Moving to Nikon Z looks that much more attractive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#25
Tangent said:
Damien Bernal covers the vignetting at 200. Good review, en Francais, but the the pictures tell the story. About 8 minutes in. C'est la vie.

Overall he is also very positive about the RF f4. If my French is not misleading me.
Click to expand...
Right, he especially points out better ergonomics than on the F/2.8 version (better rings arrangement, in his opinion). Vignette looks better on the F/4 version. Stabilization is also a tad better. He didn't find any significant optical difference at comparable focal length + aperture in normal conditions. Colors are a bit warmer on the F/2.8.
The F/4 version's bokeh may be a tad more "nervous". And flare is a bit more present too.
Fot the rest, to him, it's mainly a question of price/size/weight/usage of F/2.8 aperture, which is quite a similar conclusion to the one of the guy at CameraLabs.

Cheers
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#28
HMC11 said:
I have pretty similar considerations for travel, but would probably pair a 15-35 f4 with the 70-200 f2.8 instead. While this combination is about 400g heavier and that the f2.8 is bigger, it allows for portrait shots of family members (which is essentially a 'requirement' :)). This would save having to carry a 85 f2 prime. Besides, based on Gordon Laing's review, it looks like the 2.8 produces a shade better overall IQ at the same aperture.
Click to expand...
But in travel pictures of family, don't you want the locale to be obvious rather than a blur? Or did you just mean that you'd use the camera at home for portraits as double duty? In that case, for a lot less money, you could get the f/4 zoom and some prime lens for portraits, one that opens wider than f/2.8.
 
Upvote 0
#29
stevelee said:
But in travel pictures of family, don't you want the locale to be obvious rather than a blur? Or did you just mean that you'd use the camera at home for portraits as double duty? In that case, for a lot less money, you could get the f/4 zoom and some prime lens for portraits, one that opens wider than f/2.8.
Click to expand...
An F2.8 allows for the option to have nicer bokeh. To capture a sharper background, it is possible to stop down, and/or focus at the hyperfocal distance.
 
Upvote 0
#31
Quarkcharmed said:
Maybe I missed it but he hasn't covered vignetting, chromatic aberrations and distortion at all. Strong vignetting is a weak point of some of the new RF lenses.
Click to expand...
If you and others want to know almost everything about this lens, take a look at the review published on the South Korean portal popco.net. In my opinion, they make the best lens reviews in the Internet outside of YouTube. I used Google translator to translate the headings of the individual pages from Korean to English.

1.디자인&조작 (Design & operation)

2.렌즈 활용&촬영 (Lens utilization & shooting)

3.해상력&광학 성능 (Resolution & optical performance)

4. 원본 샘플 (Original sample)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#32
stevelee said:
And you might get even nicer bokeh with the cheap f/1.8 prime.
Click to expand...
While that could be true, an image depends on more than just bokeh. I have compared the 85 f1.2 with the 85 f2, and found that I prefer the overall rendering of the former. I guess a good photographer would be able to use the latter such that images from it would appeal as much as those from the f1.2 to most people; but, alas, I am not so good and only sort of improving incrementally. Besides, I was trying to find a good travel combo, and would prefer 2 zooms without having to bring along a prime - not so much the weight, but trying to keep lens switching to a minimum.
 
Upvote 0
#33
amorse said:
I really like his reviews. He always seems to take a sober look what he's testing without getting too caught up in hype.
Click to expand...

Good and fair review; horses 4 courses on this one. For £1600 option is to pick up the compact F4 70-200 (bearing in mind no TC can be used with it) vs the excellent sharp EF MK 2 70-200 F4 £1200 which can use EF TC's extending range of lens to 98-280 F5.6 or 200 -400 F8.
 
Upvote 0
#34
HMC11 said:
While that could be true, an image depends on more than just bokeh. I have compared the 85 f1.2 with the 85 f2, and found that I prefer the overall rendering of the former. I guess a good photographer would be able to use the latter such that images from it would appeal as much as those from the f1.2 to most people; but, alas, I am not so good and only sort of improving incrementally. Besides, I was trying to find a good travel combo, and would prefer 2 zooms without having to bring along a prime - not so much the weight, but trying to keep lens switching to a minimum.
Click to expand...
I was addressing two things, since I wasn’t sure which you meant. The fast prime was for portraits around home. For travel portraits, which I see as a positive alternative to selfies, isn’t the point that it shows that the person is at this remote/beautiful/exotic spot? In that case blurring out the beach/volcano/mountain seems to be counterproductive, and thus calling for stopping down.
 
Upvote 0
#35
stevelee said:
I was addressing two things, since I wasn’t sure which you meant. The fast prime was for portraits around home. For travel portraits, which I see as a positive alternative to selfies, isn’t the point that it shows that the person is at this remote/beautiful/exotic spot? In that case blurring out the beach/volcano/mountain seems to be counterproductive, and thus calling for stopping down.
Click to expand...
It's for travelling. However, blurring out the background for travel photos would be desirable in various situations, particularly at crowded scenic spots where it would be hard to avoid distractions, or when such effects are intended (by me). So having the option to do both would be good for me.
 
Upvote 0
#37
Unless you are intent on using teleconvertors with a 70-200, I can't find much of a fault with this lens.
I've owned 3 other EF iterations and this is the finest in terms of distortion, corner to corner sharpness, rendering (true, bokeh is a bit nervous) and micro contrast. Then there are the physical attributes which all earn top marks.

This has bested the 135L as my favorite lens from Canon. Never thought it would happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#38
bbasiaga said:
But I see this lens as more of a travel lens, despite its ability to be used in studio. And that is where it has its most attraction for me. So small and light.
-Brian
Click to expand...

I agree to this point. On a trip to Europe this summer I used the RF24-105L for walking around. When I checked in Lightroom I discovered images between 35-70mm were less than 5% and typically I wished I had more wide angle than 24mm and often 105mm was not enough. With the 70-200 f4 being so small (not much different than 24-105 retracted) combined with a 14-35mm f4 in my shoulder bag would have worked out better. When I check my entire library, 35-70 falls under 1.5%, but that is partly because EF100-400 II is my most used lens and at high frame rates for outdoor water sports my kids are involved in. I’m almost convinced, but to justify it I need to sell the 24-105 because I try to keep a cap on total lenses since it’s a hobby only.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

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
Stock Notice: Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z at B&H Photo
Replies
1
Views
627
freejay
F
Richard CR
The Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z is the “Sharpest Zoom Ever”
Replies
36
Views
3K
OldDudePhotog
O
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 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