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.
Aug 24, 2026 at 11:30 AM
Previous versions of rscheffler's message #17094496 « One Year With Canon's 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Zed »
