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.

 

[lostnomore]

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.

I wouldn't say I'm elitist, just picky. I enjoy the results that I get with the best glass I can afford and so I save up for it instead of being dissatisfied and frustrated with the results from the cheaper glass I used to buy. And past ISO 12,800, I don't like the detail loss I get after applying NR. But as the saying goes, "To each his own."

 

[JoeTheSnowPlowGuy]

It is elitist to say someone shouldn’t get into photography if they can’t afford to buy the best equipment possible. I think that kind of view point is exclusive instead of inclusive, and people who are trying to get into the hobby/profession may read that and chose not to because of a misconception that you have to use this or that piece of equipment to be successful.

As for the NR past 12,800, what software are you using, and how much reduction are you using? I find even at ISO20000 I’m still getting really good details after NR.

I shot this at ISO20000 because in the heat of the moment I cranked the ISO instead of dropping the shutter speed. Is it the best? No, but it’s ok, and shows a decent amount of detail. There is noise because it’s a real photo, not an AI generation. I used 25 strength denoise ai in Lightroom. Shot with R6 Mk2 F4, 1/1600, ISO20000 on the 70-200 F4. (I scrubbed the camera data, this is the retail file.)

I think much ado about nothing is made from high ISO usage in a lot of situations. I think I could shoot an entire hockey game at 20000 and make it work in post. Like you said, to each his own, but the only people who see noise, unless it’s really bad, are photographers and photo critics.

 

[lostnomore]

I don't think it's worth me trying to contribute more to this discussion. I merely dared to state an opinion which got branded as being "elitist" and then also "exclusive" after trying to explain myself. It's for reasons like this that I don't often post on forums, so now I think I'll go back to being more of an observer instead of a participant. So much for "friendly" forums around here.

By the way, this thread was started merely as excitement about a f/2.8 lens and then it got switched to extolling the virtues of f/4. The point of exactly why that switch occurred I still can't figure out.

 

[JoeTheSnowPlowGuy]

I don't think it's worth me trying to contribute more to this discussion. I merely dared to state an opinion which got branded as being "elitist" and then also "exclusive" after trying to explain myself. It's for reasons like this that I don't often post on forums, so now I think I'll go back to being more of an observer instead of a participant. So much for "friendly" forums around here.

By the way, this thread was started merely as excitement about a f/2.8 lens and then it got switched to extolling the virtues of f/4. The point of exactly why that switch occurred I still can't figure out.

I think we’re both stating our positions on the matter. However, you’re right, this is about the 2.8 70-200. We could take that other discussion to another thread. Let’s have a digital beer and get this back on topic.

 

[RedCobra]

• Canon EOS R5
• RF70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM
• 200.0 mm
• ƒ/3.2
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 160

R5, RF 70-200 f/2.8 Sunset in Timbavati SA