rscheffler Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
What is your definition of better?
IMO yes it is, especially if you value its smaller (collapsed) size and lower weight. My impression from using both is the RF might be a little sharper and higher contrast. Even if there's only negligible real-world optical difference between the two, the weight difference is huge, to the point where using both side by side during an event, the EF felt like having a lead bar on the end of the camera. Ultimately I got a good deal on the even smaller and lighter RF 70-200/4, which even better matches my priorities for this type of lens.
The biggest tradeoff IMO is lack of TC compatibility, if that was a feature you used with the EF versions.
If there is a new 70-200/2.8, it will likely be the Z line to pair with the capabilities of the 24-105/2.8. Meaning some video-centric optimizations such as focus breathing control, power zoom accessory, etc. My guess is it will be more expensive than the current version.
|