Full Frame Why I chose the F/4 over the f/2.8 for RF 70-200

[BasilFawlty]

First, this is in NO way intended to knock the f/2.8 version, which I am certain is a fantastic lens. Just food for thought for anyone still deciding which version to get. I think the bottom line is to consider your most frequent use cases.

When I decided to sell my EF version of the 70-200, to get an RF version for my R5, I really struggled with whether to get the RF 70-200 f/2.8 or the F/4 version. Yes, the f/2.8 was more expensive, but that fact really had little bearing on my decision. For me, it really came down to the fact that most of what I'd be using the lens for was landscape photography and not so much portraits. For that reason I opted for the f/4 version. After two years I have no regrets. I really do love the light weight and compact design of the f4 version. For most of what I shoot, I truly don't miss that extra stop of light. That said, if I were a wedding photographer, or otherwise did a lot of portraits where the extra bokeh and/or low light performance would have been more important than size and weight, I probably would have gone for the f 2.8. However, I do have a EF 50mm F1.4, an RF 85 f/2 and a EF 135 f/2 for those occasion where I want more background separation or better low light performance, I feel I'm covered with these other lenses. Besides, from many reviews I've seen, at the longer focal lengths, the f4 renders pretty decent background blur and subject separation anyway. As I do a lot of hiking for landscape shooting, the RF 70-200 f/4 is really the perfect solution. Your milage may vary. (PS, while money wan't a driving factor, I will add that with the money I saved, I did buy the RF 85 f/2.

 

[ShipleyNW]

I'm with you on every aspect of your post. Since I started with digital (and zooms) I went with the F4 versions of Canon's L lenses. The 2.8 versions were just too big and heavy to be practical for what I do, and while test-chart sharpness is undoubtedly better with the faster lenses, in practice, my F4 lenses have always been great, very sharp.

I do like the fact that the RF 70-200/4 has an external, collapsible zoom. The more compact, the better, in my opinion. Plus, it will fit in a bag no problem. The EF, internal zoom lenses were always a pain in that regard. A bag designed around those lenses (and all the good bags are) made everything else about the bag weird. My RF 70-200/4, when collapsed, is about the same size as my 24-105/4. Both of them travel vertically in a shoulder bag that doesn't hang down to my knees.

 

[Dean Wilson]

I chose the f/2.8 for the extra stop and bohak for landscape and weight be damned! At 71 if I can't hike carrying the RF Holy Trinity and 100-500mm and a couple cameras then it's time to stay home.

I must say though when hiking Misery Ridge Trail with a 35 lbs, 40L backpack I was giving serious thought to getting a small bag and forcing myself to LEAVE SOME GEAR AT THE MOTEL!

My current trip I packed 5 lenses, R and R5 along with a Minolta 35mm film, as well as my Kodak Brownie Target Six-16. Great news, to save weight I forgot both tripods.

 

[Only RF]

When I got into event photography I sold my EF 24-105 F4 for the EF 24-70 2.8 II. I also sold my EF 70-200 F4 and for the EF 70-200 2.8 II. All excellent lenses but the 24-105 was not my favourite at 24mm on a FF.

You can't beat real Bokeh from a fast lens however these days things are a little different. With my age and shoulders lighter lenses are better for me. My wife is very supportive of my hobby but I try to be somewhat reasonable with how much I spend. We like to travel a lot as well so there are costs there.

Now with excellent NR apps and Lens Blur I don't really need 2.8 or faster lenses. Lens Blur is OK but not like the real thing. If I had the money all of my old EF lenses would be in a nice glass display case. Everyone laughed when Canon announced the 100-500. Then the 600mm, 800mm and 200-800 came out not so much laughing anymore.

If I won a lottery I would also have the RF 24-70, the RF 70-200 and the RF 600 f4 - just because. I have a few nice and sturdy monopods.

Today I'm happy with my RF 24-105 f4, 100-500 and the 1.4 TC. Makes travel decisions easy as I just take everything.

 

[TwoWheeler]

I chose the f/2.8 for the extra stop and bohak

Y’know, one just can never have enough bohak.

 

[TwoWheeler]

I keep looking for the One Lens To Rule Them All: 28-600mm F 1.8, 1:1 macro, made from super light Unobtaium and Helium filled…and $50.

I borrowed a 70-200 2.8 a few weeks back and it was a damned nice lens…but I just can’t make myself cough up the money. I have the money, but I keep asking myself what it offers that my 100-400 and 85 don’t.

I should probably just stop being cheap and buy the damned thing.

 

[BasilFawlty]

I should probably just stop being cheap and buy the damned thing.

Someone is in the early stages of GAS!

 

[timm]

I keep looking for the One Lens To Rule Them All: 28-600mm F 1.8, 1:1 macro, made from super light Unobtaium and Helium filled…and $50.

Maybe we could do a group buy and shave some money off that $50 price tag!

Tim

 

[Dean Wilson]

When it comes to camera gear I like to go on SKI Trips. Spending Kids Inheritance

 

[Only RF]

When it comes to camera gear I like to go on SKI Trips. Spending Kids Inheritance

Yep. They can work for that like we did.

 

[TwoWheeler]

Someone is in the early stages of GAS!

Stage 1: Denial?