Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

2 end

RF 70-200 f2.8L question

khurram1
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · RF 70-200 f2.8L question

I was hoping to get some feedback on how satisfied those that have the RF 70-200 f2.8L lens are.

I’m trying to decide on going all in on RF lenses. My last EF lense is the EF 70-200 f2.8L III, and I also have the EF 2x v.III teleconverter.

I never liked the design of the RF 70-200, because I prefer the fixed non-telescoping internal zoom, and the other reason used to be the ability to use teleconverter. However, I’ve probably only used my t/c maybe three times in the past 2 years or so.

I have been leaning more to going lighter and more compact, so was starting to warm up to the RF 70-200 f2.8. The EF with the teleconverter and the adapter is huge! It will depend on how much extra I gave to put in selling my lense, t/c and adapter.

I was going to list my lens, but I went out and tried the RF lens today. I found the zoom radius from 70-200 to be pretty long. Balance of the lens also didn’t feel quite right, and with the amount of how much you have to turn the zoom ring, it doesn’t seem like it could be a hinderance when you need to change focal lenths quickly. As someone with a bit of carpel tunnel wrist issues, I also have that concern as well.

I know the RF is smaller and lighter (albeit a fatter lens), but it just SEEMED heavier, or harder to zoom. I’m not sure if it’s just something that I’ll get used to, since I’ve been shooting with the internal zoom Canon 70-200 f2.8L lenses for over 20 years - heck I also had the original 80-200 f2.8L lens before that!

I would really appreciate some input for those that made the switch. Not looking really for a IQ impression of the lens - there are plenty of reviews out there. More on how others felt about the balance of the lens. Did it take some time to get used to it

Happy with the switch

I know I’m probably going to have to take a big hit on the upgrade cost, so just wanted to get some input from others, and if anyone else has similar usability concerns on how the lens handles.

Nov 26, 2022 at 12:45 AM

Wolf_P
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · RF 70-200 f2.8L question

I switched from EF 70-200/2.8 II and I am very pleased. The drawback is as you write, it is a lot heavier to zoom. I tend to change to the wanted focal length before I focus while I zoomed following the target with the EF. It is possible to zoom following the target with the RF also but it is not as easy.

The advantage with the RF is the low weight and the much better balance. If you carry it for a long time this feels really nice.

Nov 26, 2022 at 01:11 AM

drobertfranz
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · RF 70-200 f2.8L question

Really the only advantage of the RF70-200 is compactness. I personally think they've made a mistake with it's design. I much prefer an internal zoom and recently went back to the EF70-200mm F.8Lmk2. The length of the zoom throw with the RF will cause you to miss shots in fast action situations. The zoom action is to slow and the zooming process takes you off target. That's a big reason I've never really warmed up to my RF100-500mm. Now the original EF100-400mm was the most intuitive external zoom Canon ever made. So easy to follow your subject as it got closer you pulled in. If subject got farther away you pushed out. Felt very natural, was extremely fast and you had no problem losing your subject.

Nov 26, 2022 at 10:02 AM

Mike_5D
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · RF 70-200 f2.8L question

Wolf_P wrote:
The advantage with the RF is the low weight and the much better balance. If you carry it for a long time this feels really nice.

The weight and huge size, especially with the adapter, is why I don't carry my EF 70-200 2.8 unless I KNOW I'll need it. I actually bought a 24-240 to solve the problem of needing more than 100mm but not wanting to carry a huge lens. The RF 70-200 is just too expensive but it's compact size would definitely encourage me to use it more.

Nov 26, 2022 at 10:33 AM

Flowernut
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · RF 70-200 f2.8L question

biggest problems of RF 70-200 is it will not accept multiplies. This is a deal killer for me especially for the 2.8

Nov 26, 2022 at 04:22 PM

rscheffler
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · RF 70-200 f2.8L question

@khurram1: I don't recall if you're Canon Canada CPS. If so, get one for a back-to-back test-drive period and try it for a longer period of time.

I recently did this and really enjoyed it because of how light and relatively compact it is for its class. I also thought image quality was excellent. Mind you, my EF equivalent is the f/4L IS v1 model. I got the EF f/4 because I didn't like how heavy the EF 2.8s were (I owned the non-IS and first IS versions since ~1995). But I could see myself easily doing event coverage with the massive 28-70/2 and the RF 70-200/2.8 as my two primary lenses.

The RF's external zoom is a compromise, of course, for achieving its compact size at 70mm. What I missed though was the very light zoom feel of the 70-200/4L IS v1, which I find very useful in some specific situations. But my experience with the v2 and v3 2.8 versions has been that their zoom feel was very stiff/heavy in comparison, so I'd probably not like them anyway due to this. I didn't think the RF was worse than these, but it has been years since I've tried the EFs and my memory might not be spot on. I also didn't use the RF for situations where I needed to rack the zoom quickly. Mostly just out in the woods type photos and a couple paid event gigs where I thought its IS combined with IBIS was really effective and better than my f/4L IS v1 (which has a much older IS version).

Back during the era of film and lower resolution digital, I used TCs a lot more than I do now. The only lens I still use a TC with is the 200-400 only because it's built-in and so easy to use.

Nov 26, 2022 at 04:52 PM

garyvot
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · RF 70-200 f2.8L question

I have been using the EF 70-200 2.8L II for years, which I have adored for its image quality if not for its heft.

I just got a refurb RF 70-200 2.8L from Canon USA during the recent site-wide 10% off sale on already discounted refurbished gear, making the final price too good to pass up. So far, I'm pretty impressed. The lens is small and light for its class, even more so if one removes the tripod collar. I expect I will carry this lens with me in situations where I might have preferred an f/4 zoom in the past.

I've never really used TCs with shorter zooms, just very occasionally with the 100-400L II. So that limitation doesn't bother me. It seems like a decent tradeoff for the much smaller size and weight. But of course, I understand how this could be a deal breaker for others.

I don't think the longer zoom throw will bother me too much, since I don't usually rack the zoom while shooting. But we will see. I haven't had the chance to use it except for some testing so far, but image quality seems very fine.

Edited on Nov 28, 2022 at 10:39 AM · View previous versions

Nov 28, 2022 at 12:09 AM

action99
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · RF 70-200 f2.8L question

If you mostly handled the RF is much nicer, remove the tripod collar and change the stupid big hood and you have a very compact and lightweight lens.

I shoot quite a bit pro hockey before with the EF 70-200 2.8 II and now the RF version and I never notice any difference in how quickly I can zoom.

The only real drawback is that you cannot use TC.

For me no way I'm going back to the EF one.

Nov 28, 2022 at 07:09 AM

Bedon
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · RF 70-200 f2.8L question

Hello everybody !

I have switched from EF 70 200 2.8 ii to the RF and I miss the internal zoom.We have to tell the truth, it was so easier to zoom with the EF version and it was so comfortable, especially if you film. I used to zoom with only one finger on the zoom ring, no way with the RF version.

BUT it's so compact, light, balanced !!!

You have to make your own choice depending on your need.

Nov 28, 2022 at 07:50 AM

rscheffler
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · RF 70-200 f2.8L question

garyvot wrote:
I just got a refurb RF 70-200 2.8L from Canon USA during the recent site-wide 10% off sale on already discounted refurbished gear, making the final price too good to pass up. So far, I'm pretty impressed. The lens is small and light for its class, even more so if one removes the tripod collar. I expect I will carry this lens with me in situations where I might have preferred an f/4 zoom in the past.

That's exactly my thought when I demoed it. I've used the EF f/4L IS since 2007 as my preference over the EF 2.8 versions, even in relatively dark environments, because it was much lighter, sharper with better flare resistance (than the 2.8 versions prior to IS v2) and I had faster primes I could fall back to. The RF 2.8 didn't feel like a big brick on the camera, handled nicely, was very sharp and at f/2.8 gets me into prime territory for some bokeh type work. I can foresee I will probably get one sooner than later as I transition to RF because of its size (when in transit), weight and quality, unless Canon actually release my fast tele zoom dream lens: 70-135/2L IS.

There is zero chance I'd get an EF style 2.8 zoom instead if it was the only RF choice - I'd probably get a used EF version if I absolutely had to have f/2.8.

Nov 28, 2022 at 01:18 PM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · RF 70-200 f2.8L question

I cannot comment on the RF 70-200... since I"m still shooting a 5DsR and EF lenses.

But I urge folks who still have the old preconceptions about extending zoom lenses to reconsider them. Like many. of you, perhaps, I recall a time long ago when extending zoom lenses were generally the cheap and not very good lenses. I think some carry that feeling about them forward to current lenses using that design. I know that I did for a long time.

But there are some really excellent lenses now that use this design, and once you get past the old bias against the design you might realize that they can actually have some advantages over the internal focus mechanism lenses.

One major advantage is that when telescoped to the shortest focal length they take up a lot less space in the bag — so you can have a smaller bag with the same lens coverage or you can fit additional lenses in the same space. If you travel with your gear this can be a pretty big deal — for example, it might be the difference that lets you fit your kit into the overhead bin on airlines.

Nov 28, 2022 at 03:37 PM

khurram1
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · RF 70-200 f2.8L question

Thanks everyone for your perspective and sharing your impressions of the lens. It sounds like that for the most part, those that switched are happy with the decision! A lot to think about - just don’t want to make the regret decision.

My initial decision to stick with the EF was threefold:
1) cost - I had upgraded to the v3 when it was released, and took around a $500 hit on that upgrade, this one would be a lot more
2) I prefer the internal zoom
3) can’t use teleconverters

The last one isn’t really a factor, since the last few years my teleconverter has for three lost part just take up room in my camera bag. The lens is also huge with the teleconverter AND the adapter.

Cost is still a concern - the EF used market has really dropped. I can even get over the internal zoom given the size and weight advantage the RF offers.

What it comes down to is ergonomics of the zoom,
and if the long throw would be an issue with my wrist. I think over time I could get used to the ergonomics, not as sure on if the the long throw of the zoom would be an issue over time.

Nov 28, 2022 at 04:48 PM

khurram1
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · RF 70-200 f2.8L question

drobertfranz wrote:
Really the only advantage of the RF70-200 is compactness. I personally think they've made a mistake with it's design. I much prefer an internal zoom and recently went back to the EF70-200mm F.8Lmk2. The length of the zoom throw with the RF will cause you to miss shots in fast action situations. The zoom action is to slow and the zooming process takes you off target. That's a big reason I've never really warmed up to my RF100-500mm. Now the original EF100-400mm was the most intuitive external zoom Canon ever made. So easy to follow your subject as it got...Show more →
I have had some push pull zoom’s and have mixed feelings. I like the simplicity, but I did have a Takamar (for Pentax), 70-200 f4, that the zoom was a bit too loose.

Nov 28, 2022 at 04:50 PM

patotts
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · RF 70-200 f2.8L question

It all depends on how you use your 70-200. If you use it for travel, portraits, etc - the push/pull operations of the RF zoom will do just fine. If you don't need a teleconverter, the RF is a great choice.

I had the RF 70-200/2.8 - it worked fine for general travel and portraits, but it was sub-optimal for sports. It was exhausting to push/pull quickly, ended up hurting my wrists actually.

I would much rather that Canon would have something like the Sony 70-200/2.8 GMii.

Nov 28, 2022 at 04:52 PM

khurram1
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · RF 70-200 f2.8L question

I was with CPS for over 25 years, but cancelled it after they got rid of the CPS equipment purchase discount. Upgrades were much more economical, when you are able to buy a lens at CPS price, so you don’t take as much of a hit when you sell, and than can also get CPS pricing on the replacement.

I am with you in the t/C’s now. Don’t use mine as much, but I don’t think I could ever give up the 2.8 for a 70-200 lens. I did “downgrade” from my 16-35 f2.8LII to a 16-35 F4L (and now the RF 14-35L), since I rarely have shot at 2.8 with thr UWA, with the exception of when I used to shoot basketball. For the 24-70 and the 70-200, I do shoot a lot at 2.8, so I couldn’t see myself going with the F4 versions of those lenses. I’ve pretty much shot with 2.8 zooms since around 1996.

rscheffler wrote:
@khurram1@: I don't recall if you're Canon Canada CPS. If so, get one for a back-to-back test-drive period and try it for a longer period of time.

I recently did this and really enjoyed it because of how light and relatively compact it is for its class. I also thought image quality was excellent. Mind you, my EF equivalent is the f/4L IS v1 model. I got the EF f/4 because I didn't like how heavy the EF 2.8s were (I owned the non-IS and first IS versions since ~1995). But I could see myself easily doing event coverage with the...Show more →

Nov 28, 2022 at 04:59 PM

khurram1
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · RF 70-200 f2.8L question

My only real issue with not having internal zoom, that sand can get into them. I had one lens which I pretty wrote off after spending 3 days in the upper and lower antelope canyons.

gdanmitchell wrote:
I cannot comment on the RF 70-200... since I"m still shooting a 5DsR and EF lenses.

But I urge folks who still have the old preconceptions about extending zoom lenses to reconsider them. Like many. of you, perhaps, I recall a time long ago when extending zoom lenses were generally the cheap and not very good lenses. I think some carry that feeling about them forward to current lenses using that design. I know that I did for a long time.

But there are some really excellent lenses now that use this design, and once you get past the old bias against...Show more →

Nov 28, 2022 at 05:02 PM

khurram1
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · RF 70-200 f2.8L question

patotts wrote:
It all depends on how you use your 70-200. If you use it for travel, portraits, etc - the push/pull operations of the RF zoom will do just fine. If you don't need a teleconverter, the RF is a great choice.

I had the RF 70-200/2.8 - it worked fine for general travel and portraits, but it was sub-optimal for sports. It was exhausting to push/pull quickly, ended up hurting my wrists actually.

I would much rather that Canon would have something like the Sony 70-200/2.8 GMii.

Thanks for sharing your experience. The concern over potentially aggravating my wrist issues was my first thought when I tried out the lens for 3-4 minutes last week.

Nov 28, 2022 at 05:04 PM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · RF 70-200 f2.8L question

khurram1 wrote:
My only real issue with not having internal zoom, that sand can get into them. I had one lens which I pretty wrote off after spending 3 days in the upper and lower antelope canyons.

I hear that a lot.

I mostly use Canon lenses for landscape photography plus some wildlife photography. I take the lenses into the precisely the kinds of places where this is supposed to be a problem. For example, I have photographed annually in Death Valley NP from more than two decades, and in the Sierra Nevada and along the Calfironai Coast for even longer. I don't shy away from conditions including snow, dust storms, high surf, and even some rain. During that time I've used four Canon EF zoom lines with the extending design (both of the EF 100-400mm L zooms, the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II, the old 24-105mm F/4L) alongside non-extending L zooms like various 60-200mm f/4 and f/2.8 models, the 16-35mm f/4, and older L and non-L primes.

I don't really see any more in the way of dust issues with the extending zooms.

The one issue that I have seen was the "zoom creep" issue on the old 24-105mm f/4, but that's pretty much it.

Again, I used to share the idea that extending zooms would necessarily be less competent lenses...

FWIW.

Dan

Nov 28, 2022 at 06:47 PM

AmbientMike
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · RF 70-200 f2.8L question

khurram1 wrote:
I was hoping to get some feedback on how satisfied those that have the RF 70-200 f2.8L lens are.

I’m trying to decide on going all in on RF lenses. My last EF lense is the EF 70-200 f2.8L III, and I also have the EF 2x v.III teleconverter.

I never liked the design of the RF 70-200, because I prefer the fixed non-telescoping internal zoom, and the other reason used to be the ability to use teleconverter. However, I’ve probably only used my t/c maybe three times in the past 2 years or so.

I have been leaning more to...Show more →

It doesn't sound like you liked it much. So no, I haven't used it, but unless you can get a longer term loan as previously suggested you seem to prefer the ef lens you already have.

Telephotos have to be longer on mirrorless to make up the shorter flange to sensor difference. I'd imagine this is at least part of the reason they made them like this, so they can be stored smaller.

Nov 28, 2022 at 08:09 PM

jtford9
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · RF 70-200 f2.8L question

I’ve had 4 operations on my hands and wrists. Left hand had 2 broken bones that were pinned together and have an interesting curve to them. Right wrist was fractured and dislocated in a basketball game in my 20’s, by the time I was in my 50’s I had to have 2 bones removed from the wrist, a bone graft and a plate with 7 screws.

I use an R3 and a gripped R5 and only RF lenses. The adapters on EF lenses were a hassle I didn’t need and I find even the heaviest RF lenses balance well in my left hand with their weight comfortably positioned towards the back of the lens. I do have big hands (6’4”) so cradling a lens and camera in one hand is ok.

I really like using the RF70-200, it’s light, much lighter than the EF, and the extending focusing still keeps the weight next to the body where I can handle it. Shooting one handed with my right hand is a problem with almost every camera/lens combo because the wrist plate doesn’t allow flexibility. Front heavy lenses cause pressure and pain. The RF 70-200 extended doesn’t add much weight towards the front so it’s doable, at least for a while.

I never once used a TC on the EF 70-200 so I don’t miss not being able to use them on the RF. I also don’t find the the focus ring throw to be an issue because in my shooting I rarely find myself needing to go from one end of the focal range to the other that often. I find I’m usually somewhere at one end or the other and towards the 135mm middle.

Nov 28, 2022 at 09:17 PM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end