I've watched videos comparing the f2.8 vs f4, I realize at 70mm the f2.8 is going to have a more pleasant bokeh but at 200 pretty darn close to each other. When all is said and done as far as AF, sharpness overall is the f2.8 really worth an extra $1,000 or so over the f4 will be using the majority of the time for pet photography and pet action
I currently have the extending (non-Z) RF 70-200 f/2.8L and have had previously the IS and non-IS versions of the Canon EF f/4 and the f/2.8 mk II. I mostly use this new lens for action shots of my young Beagles as they chase around the garden and generally clown around, but can now take it along to the odd gym fitness shoot since it fits in my bag! For me it has these advantages:
- Size/weight. It's easy for me to toss a toy with one hand and shoot single-handed (obviously can't zoom without both hands available!)
- AF is significantly faster than EF 70-200 f/2.8 II (which was previously my fastest lens) and really lets the R series AF show what it can do.
- Very sharp, certainly beats all my previous 70-200s out from the center when wide open
- Regardless of the aperture, I'd say this new lens delivers smoother bokeh than my previous 70-200s
The only down side I've observed, and it only happens in some situations, is that it produces a shot that looks rather.. well I'll use the word artificial rather than clinical. This only happens in certain light, at certain distances and only ever at f/2.8. I wish I could find you an example but those shots I tend not to keep. It's as though it delivers too much "pop" on the subject, maybe too much micro-contrast or something; it makes the whole shot look far less organic. Rare event though.
For me this lens was solidly worth the upgrade cost.
Ray Still wrote:
I've watched videos comparing the f2.8 vs f4, I realize at 70mm the f2.8 is going to have a more pleasant bokeh but at 200 pretty darn close to each other. When all is said and done as far as AF, sharpness overall is the f2.8 really worth an extra $1,000 or so over the f4 will be using the majority of the time for pet photography and pet action
I replaced my EF 70-200 / 4L IS II with the RF 70-200 / 4L IS and was very happy due to the smaller size with no [apparent] nit to IQ. However, I got the bug and bought an RF 70-200 / 2.8L IS and expected to sell my RF 70-200 / 4L IS. Took my son's prom photos with it and was very pleased. What happened next is that I sold the 2.8. Why? Any differences in IQ and/or DOF were inconsequential (to my eyes). The f/4 was smaller and lighter, which was nice, but not a deal breaker (or even close, really). What I really loved about the f/4 was the placement of the zoom ring. Honestly, that was it (in combination with the inconsequential differences in IQ and DOF) that led me to keep the f/4.
Others, of course, may feel that the differences in sharpness and/or DOF are very consequential and no one cares where the zoom ring is. They're wrong, though.
If you are shooting in good lighting all the time with distant backgrounds you can make the f/4 work. But if you plan on shooting in any low light conditions around the golden hours there can be a big difference between f/2.8 and f/4. And for me, I would love to be able to be satisfied with the little f/4 lens but just can't do it so I carry around the f/2.8 version which is very small/lightweight compared to the EF days.
