p.1 #1 · One Year With Canon's 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Zed
I can’t get over how enjoyable this lens is to use. Moving from the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM III to the original RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM, I missed the internal zoom design and extender compatibility greatly. Sure the original RF 70-200mm is sharp and compact, but it’s awkward as heck twisting it to move from 70mm to 200mm. When paired with a 2x extender, the return of 70-200mm f/2.8 and 140-400mm f/5.6 to my camera bag has been awesome.
I really question why Canon strayed so far from their traditional 70-200mm design with the original RF version?
?format=1500w
Williamson Lake from Foley Peak - 1/500 sec | f/4.0 | ISO100 | 100mm
p.1 #2 · One Year With Canon's 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Zed
big_fish wrote:
I can’t get over how enjoyable this lens is to use. Moving from the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM III to the original RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM, I missed the internal zoom design and extender compatibility greatly. Sure the original RF 70-200mm is sharp and compact, but it’s awkward as heck twisting it to move from 70mm to 200mm. When paired with a 2x extender, the return of 70-200mm f/2.8 and 140-400mm f/5.6 to my camera bag has been awesome.
I really question why Canon strayed so far from their traditional 70-200mm design with the original RF version?
Very nice images!
I also have the 'Zed' (in black) and it's a great lens. It's the best 70-200 I've used/owned going back to the original EF 80-200/2.8, with which the Z has a superficial design similarity. Biggest feature I like about the Z is how the zoom ring resistance is light, yet just right, without being too loose or easy to turn. All of the extending zoom designs IMO have too high zoom resistance for fast action work where quick zoom pulls are needed without throwing things off balance. And by that I don't mean disturbing the balance of a gimbal, rather, the amount of arm torque needed to turn the zoom ring quickly interferes with maintaining the composition on fast-moving subjects (at least for me).
That said, I don't disparage Canon's decision to make the first two 70-200's extending designs. It allowed for compact designs at 70mm, particularly the f/4 version, which I decided to keep along with the Z, precisely because it's so small while in transit. It was a unique feature, and I believe it still is among the f/2.8 models from the mainstream competition. Either one of those I can stand in all of my camera bags and cases, in a vertical slot. The Z can't in all except my deepest and most massive hard case, that I rarely use for cameras and lenses. Therefore its footprint inside my most used bags is approximately that of 2.5 or 3 vertical/standing lenses. I had to rethink the configuration of some of my bags to make it work, but it is a worthwhile lens to bring to practically everything that benefits from that focal length range.
p.1 #3 · One Year With Canon's 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Zed
It’s all preference. For me, the compact size is more important to me than the internal zoom and TC usage. When I was first shooting RF, I loved the V1 70-200/2.8. If I end up getting another here with my second go round, I would definitely go for the V1 again if getting the f/2.8, though I’d more likely get the f/4 for it to be more compact. (Right now I’m adapting the EF70-300L for my short telezoom and I’m really enjoying it so no rush here).
p.1 #5 · One Year With Canon's 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Zed
I prefer the original RF 70-200 due to it's compact size. I would've normally added the Z version as well but the non-removable tripod collar is a deal breaker for me.
Also, it looks funny to me when people use the original lens hoods on the RF 70-200's and RF 100-500. It makes the lenses much bigger than needed, especially for packing in the bag. Those unnecessary large white hoods should not leave the Canon box and replaced with ES-83's on day one.
The Z is about a pound lighter than the EF, but of course can't be used on EF if you're still in a mixed EF/RF body system.
Back a couple years ago I had the chance to use the EF v3 alongside the first version of the RF 70-200/2.8. They're both great lenses and will get you the images you need. The RF versions are refinements, both optically and with the user experience. At that time I found the RF was a tad sharper and higher contrast wide open and I think the Z version takes this up another notch. But for me it's really more the user experience where the RF versions won me over. The first version is quite compact and also lighter than the EF versions. It's significantly noticeable when adapting the EF to RF because with the adapter, the already heavy EF lens sits another inch farther away from the camera, moving the center of gravity further away from the camera, which in turn puts more strain on the wrists. On paper it's difficult to quantify how much this becomes a factor until you have both side by side and realize it's quite significant.
As a 'hybrid' lens, some of the Z's video optimizations, particularly the zoom ring feel/experience I stated previously, are also very welcome for how I use the lens primarily doing stills. It's also very sharp and very close in performance to the 100-300/2.8 and with the 1.4x TC, sharper and higher contrast than my EF 200-400/4.
artsupreme wrote:
I prefer the original RF 70-200 due to it's compact size. I would've normally added the Z version as well but the non-removable tripod collar is a deal breaker for me.
Also, it looks funny to me when people use the original lens hoods on the RF 70-200's and RF 100-500. It makes the lenses much bigger than needed, especially for packing in the bag. Those unnecessary large white hoods should not leave the Canon box and replaced with ES-83's on day one.
I have some opinions here too. Totally agree about the hoods. I left the supplied hood in the box and instead bought a couple types of metal screw-on hoods from Amazon. The first is an 82mm 'long' hood that's about 1.5" long. Seems to be just right so that it doesn't vignette at 70mm. But I actually use a 1" 77mm hood most of the time with a step down ring. Reason being that the front end of that hood has an 82mm inside thread that nicely fits the supplied front cap, or allows stacking with another 1" 77mm hood with 82-77mm step down ring. That does cause vignetting on the wide end, so I mostly only use that configuration with the 135/1.8, which is supplied with an even more ridiculously huge hood that is also sold for use with the RF 600/8. These hoods eat up so much more space in the bag... I'd really welcome a reversible hood that was only fractionally wider in diameter than the lens itself to better conserve space. As it is, with the short 1" hood I haven't really noticed major issues with flare, so haven't felt compelled to use anything longer.
The tripod foot I'm 50/50. The removable foot designs that Canon has used over the years have all had flaws. With the Z at least you can remove the foot portion, but you're left with the big tightening knob. And the removable foot can be wobbly if you don't fully tighten its locking knob, which needs to be tighter than is initially apparent, otherwise you end up with a slight wiggle that is annoying.
The Z is about a pound lighter than the EF, but of course can't be used on EF if you're still in a mixed EF/RF body system.
Back a couple years ago I had the chance to use the EF v3 alongside the first version of the RF 70-200/2.8. They're both great lenses and will get you the images you need. The RF versions are refinements, both optically and with the user experience. At that time I found the RF was a tad sharper and higher contrast wide open and I think the Z version takes this up another notch. But for me it's really more the user experience where the RF versions won me over. The first version is quite compact and also lighter than the EF versions. It's significantly noticeable when adapting the EF to RF because with the adapter, the already heavy EF lens sits another inch farther away from the camera, moving the center of gravity further away from the camera, which in turn puts more strain on the wrists. On paper it's difficult to quantify how much this becomes a factor until you have both side by side and realize it's quite significant.
As a 'hybrid' lens, some of the Z's video optimizations, particularly the zoom ring feel/experience I stated previously, are also very welcome for how I use the lens primarily doing stills. It's also very sharp and very close in performance to the 100-300/2.8 and with the 1.4x TC, sharper and higher contrast than my EF 200-400/4....Show more →
Thanks Ron!
I am still awaiting Canon's "new" hi mpx body to come out before I "check" out! I may make it 1st at Canon's rate!
The 70-200mm IS is a must for me because of hand tremors. But I have always had a 70-200mmf2.8 IS version in my "bag".
Dan
p.1 #9 · One Year With Canon's 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Zed
I have some opinions here too. Totally agree about the hoods. I left the supplied hood in the box and instead bought a couple types of metal screw-on hoods from Amazon. The first is an 82mm 'long' hood that's about 1.5" long. Seems to be just right so that it doesn't vignette at 70mm. But I actually use a 1" 77mm hood most of the time with a step down ring. Reason being that the front end of that hood has an 82mm inside thread that nicely fits the supplied front cap, or allows stacking with another 1" 77mm hood with 82-77mm step down ring. That does cause vignetting on the wide end, so I mostly only use that configuration with the 135/1.8, which is supplied with an even more ridiculously huge hood that is also sold for use with the RF 600/8. These hoods eat up so much more space in the bag... I'd really welcome a reversible hood that was only fractionally wider in diameter than the lens itself to better conserve space. As it is, with the short 1" hood I haven't really noticed major issues with flare, so haven't felt compelled to use anything longer. ...Show more →
It's interesting to hear others are so strongly against the OEM hoods. Over the years I've tried other hoods and considered moving away form using one altogether. However, I've found the OEM hoods act nicely as a bit of protection from bumps and impact especially when moving through forest undergrowth - hoods prevents sticks from reaching the lens. Additionally, the OEM hoods will actually jump off their bayonet mount if the impact is significant enough... kind of acting as a sacrificial point of contact. A rigged third-party threaded lens hood will definitely damage a lens's threads if a threaded hood is hit too hard.
p.1 #10 · One Year With Canon's 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Zed
Regarding the hoods, as noted, the ES-83 for the RF 50/1.2L fits perfectly on the V1 and f/4 versions and is SO much better. Here it is on the v1 2.8L:
p.1 #11 · One Year With Canon's 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Zed
It's interesting to hear others are so strongly against the OEM hoods. Over the years I've tried other hoods and considered moving away form using one altogether. However, I've found the OEM hoods act nicely as a bit of protection from bumps and impact especially when moving through forest undergrowth - hoods prevents sticks from reaching the lens. Additionally, the OEM hoods will actually jump off their bayonet mount if the impact is significant enough... kind of acting as a sacrificial point of contact. A rigged third-party threaded lens hood will definitely damage a lens's threads if a threaded hood is hit too hard. ...Show more →
You'll understand what we are talking about when you get yourself an ES-83. Still OEM, but fits like a glove and tiny compared to the large white hoods that come with the lenses:
p.1 #12 · One Year With Canon's 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Zed
That hood also fits on the 100-500, just saying. So I have two. Well, one, since my son repossessed my 70-200... I am using the 24-70/24-105Z hood on the 70-200Z even though it's much smaller - I see it predominantly as a bumper than anything else, and the huge piece of furniture that the Z ships with is not acceptable to me. Haven't found a snug version of the ES83 in 82mm.
p.1 #13 · One Year With Canon's 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Zed
The 85/1.4L IS's ET-83E hood also works with both 70-200 external zoom models. Recently sold that lens with the hood but maybe should have kept the hood.
Totally agree about the hoods. I left the supplied hood in the box and instead bought a couple types of metal screw-on hoods from Amazon. The first is an 82mm 'long' hood that's about 1.5" long. Seems to be just right so that it doesn't vignette at 70mm. But I actually use a 1" 77mm hood most of the time with a step down ring. Reason being that the front end of that hood has an 82mm inside thread that nicely fits the supplied front cap, or allows stacking with another 1" 77mm hood with 82-77mm step down ring. That does cause vignetting on the wide end, so I mostly only use that configuration with the 135/1.8, which is supplied with an even more ridiculously huge hood that is also sold for use with the RF 600/8. These hoods eat up so much more space in the bag... I'd really welcome a reversible hood that was only fractionally wider in diameter than the lens itself to better conserve space. As it is, with the short 1" hood I haven't really noticed major issues with flare, so haven't felt compelled to use anything longer.