RF 70 - 200 - Debating if I should buy one.

[Kathryn Milner]

I have contemplated purchasing an RF 70 - 200 f4 but I want to limit the weight in my camera bag. I also have limited space in my camera bag without using a bigger, heavier one. I have an RF 100 - 500. I know the 70 to 200 is lighter but is there any benefit to shooting with a 70 - 200 over what I can shoot with the 100 - 500 other than weight.

 

[Shotbycurtin]

He makes a good point but I have yet to find a situation where my 100-500 does not work quite well. That being said, I often ask people who ask why so many, well let's just say lenses. I usually respond by asking if they play golf. If the answer is affirmative or if they are even a bit familiar they will recognize the bag full of clubs, each a tool for a specific situation. Canon makes lots and lots of "clubs" for your camera bag. You just have to pay for them and plan well for each outing so you can take just what you need. I on the other hand try and bring it all and that explains my bad knees.

There are only three real equipment challenges for most photographers, can I buy another lens, will I have the lens I need with me when I need it, can I make what I did bring work. Let's not even get into flashes and flash triggers ...

Like Kathryn, I‘m hovering over the buy it now button for the 70-200 albeit f2.8. I totaly agree with you Frank that it’s hard to justify with the 100-500 being such a good lens. Coupled with the low light performance of the body it makes it a difficult decision. The 70-200iiiL was my “go to” EF lens, if I wasn’t shooting sports or wildlife. I like compressed landscapes and street stuff along with some portraits, low light and bokeh performance is cracking. Still a difficult decision, though I’ll probably get one eventually along with the 28-70 f2. That will be it though.. maybe the macro lens when it arrives..

 

[Avatarshots]

I have contemplated purchasing an RF 70 - 200 f4 but I want to limit the weight in my camera bag. I also have limited space in my camera bag without using a bigger, heavier one. I have an RF 100 - 500. I know the 70 to 200 is lighter but is there any benefit to shooting with a 70 - 200 over what I can shoot with the 100 - 500 other than weight.

You’ll have more light hitting your sensor and in some cases better depth of field with a 70-200. I have a 70-200 2.8 AND the 100-500. Both have there purpose. It just depends on what you’re going to be shooting

 

[Doc]

I was torn between 2.8 and 4 versions and decided on the f/4 due to weight. Remember it is also an L lens, I don't think Canon would compromise on the f/4 just because it is slower. AF is very fast, it is very light and very baggable. I am happy with the choice but have only walked the sidelines at my son's spring football practices with it so far (photo below). I also shoot wildlife as a hobby, and the 70-200 might go along, but the 100-500 and the 800/11 are my go-tos. That 800/11 is an amazing lens in the field.

 

[Brian McGovern]

Hi Kathryn, I use the RF70-200 for 90% of my photos. It is light enough to carry around all day without it becoming a burden. The only time I have had reason to wish for another lens is reach for wildlife shooting. I posted a red kite earlier today. That was taken with a 70-200 and was so far away that I almost didn't bother. I cropped heavily and still got a reasonable photo. I take my dogs out for walks and take my camera with me. The 70-200 is ideal for that. If I was going out to take wildlife photos as the main goal then I would probably choose the 100-500. I hope that makes sense.

 

[Shotbycurtin]

I bought one n the end, the 2.8 version, in for a penny in for a pound as they say. I’ve a field trip. next Tuesday, to a castle and gardens, so looking forward to giving it a go there If it turns up in time. Will let you know how I get on and hopefully post up one or two half decent shots.

 

[Shotbycurtin]

Turned up this morning. I’m off to a local castle and gardens tomorrow, so it’s the lens of choice. A quick shot to make sure it does what it says on the tin..

 

[Shotbycurtin]

Used the new lens all day yesterday, pleased with it. Some shots from the day below.

 

[Shotbycurtin]

Two more..

 

[Shotbycurtin]

Last two..

 

[Rhino]

I have contemplated purchasing an RF 70 - 200 f4 but I want to limit the weight in my camera bag. I also have limited space in my camera bag without using a bigger, heavier one. I have an RF 100 - 500. I know the 70 to 200 is lighter but is there any benefit to shooting with a 70 - 200 over what I can shoot with the 100 - 500 other than weight.

I believe that you should hold on and save up for a f/2.8. THEN you will notice a difference. I’m actually not sold on either of the RF 70-200mm. Unfortunately for me, I work in dusty and sometimes rainy environments and am very concerned about the movement of the lens glass.

While I know that the performance is world class, I don’t want to take the risk of getting dust and possibly mold inside the barrel. So I continue to use my 70-200 MkIII f/2.8 with the adapter.

This combination also gives me the ability to swap between my R5 and 5DM4 (backup).