SHOCKED at RF 70-200 f/2.8 performance on R6!!

[lostnomore]

After over 6 weeks of owning this lens, I finally had a chance to try it out today with action shots, albeit nothing intense: my wife jogging in prep for a 3 km run. So I ended up with about 180 shots of her running towards me, away, and some at an angle as I stood atop a small hill. Also, some with her at a distance (with the potential for the AF to lock on to other objects), others up close as she approached. I had it wide open at f/2.8 for the best subject-background separation, face-eye tracking (why on earth use any other AF mode on an R6 with people/animals/birds/___??), and drive mode on high-speed continuous (not +). Of those 180 shots, there was one that could be considered out-of-focus if one was being really picky. There were perhaps a dozen that were slightly less than tack-sharp, but which one probably wouldn't notice if posted on screen, ex. social media. The rest, WOW - sharp enough to cut ya like a knife!!!!!

I know this isn't a surprise to anybody else who owns this lens (or the R6), but I thought I'd post this anyhow, especially for those on the fence about it (or Canon mirrorless). Do I regret spending the extra for f/2.8 vs. f/4? Absolutely NOT - at least not after today!! If you have the means, absolutely go for it, especially if you plan to do any sort of indoor shooting or you want that extra bit of bokeh and/or subject-background separation. You just never know when f/2.8 might come in handy.

Would I get such a high hit-rate of perfect shots with athletes or other erratic, fast subjects? I'm not sure, but I'm sure it would still be definitely higher than the Nikon D750 with 70-200mm f/2.8 ED VR II combo I had a couple of years ago. I decided against Nikon Z-mount mirrorless after being mind-numbed by my first experience with R6 autofocus last summer (and learning of not-so-stellar AF results with Nikon mirrorless).

Anyhow, exciting news for me at least. Hopefully somebody else gets something out of this.

 

[AKVet]

I have this same lens that I use for youth sports and taking photos at our local high school. I have to agree with you. It is an outstanding "events" lens. A bit to heavy for me to use as a general walking around all-day travel lens though... so now I am jonesing for the 24-240. However, I will never give up the RF 70-200 f/2.8!

 

[cdgta]

Agree with lostnomore about quality of images shot with this lens and with AKVet about the weight. Too heavy for me unless shooting from tripod only. Part of the reason I moved to mirrorless was to lighten the load for travel and now have come to prefer lighter kit generally.

 

[Flango85]

I have the R6 MK2 and an RF 70-200 2.8. I shoot lots of sporting events, volleyball, football, basketball and swimming. The combination gives me flawless performance and very few shots that are not in perfect focus. Honestly it’s like magic for an old guy who started with film cameras and mostly failed at indoor sporting events.

 

[RedCobra]

I used this lens a lot on my last African trip. I was in bushy environments where the longer teles were just too long. As I edit these photos I am amazed at the IQ of the RF 70-200 f/2.8 compared to the 100-500 (whish is also very good) and the OM-1 with the 150-400 f/4.5 (300-100 FFE)

• Canon EOS R5
• RF70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM
• 200.0 mm
• ƒ/3.2
• 1/640 sec
• ISO 1600

• Canon EOS R5
• RF70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM
• 200.0 mm
• ƒ/3.5
• 1/1000 sec
• ISO 100

 

[JoeTheSnowPlowGuy]

The RF 70-200s are impressive. I went for the F4 variant because 1) I can’t afford the F2.8, and 2) I can’t afford the F2.8 and I needed a 70-200. No regrets. A touch of Denoise here and there as needed, hardly ever necessary, and the Dof of F4 is just fine for everything to include I door sports. Wrestling at 1/500 ISO6400 with 25 strength LR Denoise, even though the images totally didn’t need it, looks great.

 

[Flango85]

The RF 70-200s are impressive. I went for the F4 variant because 1) I can’t afford the F2.8, and 2) I can’t afford the F2.8 and I needed a 70-200. No regrets. A touch of Denoise here and there as needed, hardly ever necessary, and the Dof of F4 is just fine for everything to include I door sports. Wrestling at 1/500 ISO6400 with 25 strength LR Denoise, even though the images totally didn’t need it, looks great.

Can’t argue with that. The 2.8 version was very expensive. The old school in me was worried about lightning in gymnasiums. However with the newer cameras it’s not as much of a dealbreaker as in the past.

I was shooting for the most part with an EF 200 2.8 L I have had for many years. Great images but I wanted to be able to change the focal length from time to time. That old 200 still calls my name from time to time. It’s very compact and just takes great photos.

 

[JoeTheSnowPlowGuy]

The old school in me was worried about lightning in gymnasiums. However with the newer cameras it’s not as much of a dealbreaker as in the past.

I think that methodology has changed with the way these new cameras handle noise and the images look super clean. I also think with the advent of AI generated images some of the noise present in real photography adds a bit of authenticity to the image.

The influencer pros needs to stop telling people they have to use F2.8 lenses for sports and events. It just becomes a barrier to entry into the field. (Maybe that’s the point- you have to spend all this money to be a successful XYZ photographer…) the DoF difference at 200mm between F4 and F2.8, in my opinion is slight, especially depending on how far away the subject is to begin with.

Canon needs to start building out their F4 line up. Where is the RF 300mm F4? Maybe the camera technology is a bit of a paradox for them. The images are so good and the noise handling is so good they don’t really need to sell the F2.8 expensive lenses for pro results…. Pretty obvious they know this with the apertures they’ve chosen for their Non-L zooms.

 

[lostnomore]

I simply couldn't shoot at f/4 in the area where I live because the dimmer lighting in most facilities would push my ISO well above 12,800 which is the highest I'm willing to tolerate. If a person can drop at least $3K on a body then they should expect to be paying at least as much for the best lenses. Otherwise, photography is probably not the wisest choice for a person to get into because, as many of you know, it doesn't just start with a body and one lens. It morphs into several lenses, and bags/cases, filters, tripod, lighting and modifiers, etc. And arguably, buying quality lenses is the most important factor in the equation. A body is only as good as the lens on it, much like how buying a Ferrari would be little good if you then put on generic Wal-Mart tires.

 

[JoeTheSnowPlowGuy]

If a person can drop at least $3K on a body then they should expect to be paying at least as much for the best lenses. Otherwise, photography is probably not the wisest choice for a person to get into because, as many of you know, it doesn't just start with a body and one lens.

That’s a pretty elitist point of view. Photography is for everyone, not just people that can afford $6,000 of equipment.

And you could shoot at F4, you just don’t want to because you have a self imposed limit of not exceeding ISO12800.

And yea, sure buying glass is always best, but getting into a mirrorless body that is super capable and using the cheaper non-L glass or used EF glass on a converter is 100% ok and is going to 100% produce some great images. I’d take an R6mk2 on non-L glass over a 5D Mk4 on premium L glass every time. Still great equipment, but there are things mirrorless bodies can do that DSLRs will never be able to reproduce.