rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
I had a look at your 'best' gallery and you have a mix of deep focus and shallow focus images, so while I can see bokeh being a priority for some images, it's not the only use you have for a telephoto lens. I would lean towards one of the RF 70-200s. I have used both and thought the f/2.8 version was the first 70-200/2.8 that I could tolerate as a standard component in my kit because it wasn't super heavy like the EF versions and I really liked how relatively compact it was when in a bag and in transit. But I ended up with the f/4 version because it's even smaller and lighter and IMO has similarly pleasing rendering *quality* but of course not as much bokeh quantity because it's a stop slower. But depending on the situation, f/4 might still be good enough by playing with camera to subject to background distance ratios. But sure, it's not going to look like a wide open 85/1.4. On the other hand, it's lighter than one and when in storage, similar in size. Meanwhile in use you gain the flexibility and reach that it offers as a zoom.
In the 24-105Z thread I posted a link to comparison photos of that lens against the 28-70/2, RF 50/1.8, EF 85/1.4L IS and the RF 70-200/4 (only up to 105mm). If you haven't seen it, have a look at the 70-200/4 images for an idea of bokeh quality when the subject is very close at 1m and 1.5m. Google Drive link. The photos are SOOC full-res jpeg previews extracted from the CR3 raw files. I have my in-camera Picture Style set to Standard but with contrast at the lowest setting (it slightly improves the R6/R6II's EVF tonality) so images may be on the softer contrast/saturation side compared to Canon's defaults.
I think in another thread we may have already discussed some of this, but I had an opportunity to buy a used 70-200/2.8 just after I acquired the f/4 version but instead got the RF 135 for the extra stop over it and the 2 stop gain over the f/4 version. I like it but I'm not entirely blown away by it. It's definitely very sharp but IMO its wide open AF performance is possibly the least consistent of the RF lenses I own when the subject is moving. But it's also the widest aperture RF lens I own and critical placement of the very narrow plane of focus in these situations is likely a challenge for the system.
|
