Canon RF 70-200mm f2.8 REVIEW vs EF: first KILLER lens for EOS R!

[@cameralabs]

My complete review of the Canon RF 70-200mm f2.8L vs EF 70-200mm f2.8! Check price at B&H: bhpho.to/2qGbJLe // WEX: tidd.ly/b1d6b83f Buy Gordon a coffee: www.paypal.me/cameralabs Gordon's In Camera book at Amazon: amzn.to/2n61PfI / Amazon uk: amzn.to/2mBqRVZ Cameralabs merch: redbubble.com/people/cameralabs/shop

[@jasemisael646]

Instablaster.

[@1young-geezer]

I purchased this lens when it first came out - and YES, the reduction in size alone has allowed me to include it in my sling bag, when the EF lens was generally left at home. Great lens as expected, and LOVE that I don't have to add an adapter to my EOS R camera fitment, making it that MUCH LESS of a space pig. Thanks for the VERY thorough review Gordon.

[@cameralabs]

You're very welcome Todd, and glad it's working out for you - the size and weight saving is significant.

[@trailofdan1]

I'll probably get this lens in about 15 years time when the price drops lol. Thanks for the review Gordon.

[@normacasto8370]

😂😂🤣🤣me too lol

[@heyimdevin]

I'll probably get this lens in about 20 years time when the price drops and my kidny regrows lol. Thanks for the review Gordon.

[@tkermi]

The RF 70-200mm Dustin Abbott just tested was surprisingly soft when wide open and to get reasonable corner sharpness it required a lot of stopping. Maybe it was a bad unit 🤔? Here's the link: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rXi8goRorK5kgLM

[@Duckshots]

Bought this instead of 85. It is a fabulous lens. Using it in my studio.

[@cameralabs]

It's a fab lens!

[@petercarpowitz7007]

Which 85 did you use before ? I'm currently starting to build my Canon nsystem (before I was in Nikon). I've got 15-35 RF and now I'm wondering if the better will be buying 24-70 2.8 rf and some 85 1.4 (waiting for Sigma DG DN) or maybe just Canon 50mm 1.8 stm + 70-200 2.8 rf. I'm a little worried that in portraits 70-200 RF will be much less sharp than prime 85.

[@tkermi]

The RF 70-200mm Dustin Abbott just tested was surprisingly soft when wide open and to get reasonable corner sharpness it required a lot of stopping. Maybe it was a bad unit 🤔? Here's the link: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rXi8goRorK5kgLM

[@petercarpowitz7007]

@@tkermi Disappointing comparison, especially comparing to "cheap" Tamron :-/

[@tkermi]

@@petercarpowitz7007 Yes, I don't know if the performance is limited because of the super compact size 🤔. But then again it's quite big diameter and solid, so that doesn't seem to be the obvious reason. And some have post really sharp looking photos taken by RF 70-200mm, though from them only the center area sharpness could be observed. For example RF 100-500mm is really sharp in its class as well as all other RF L branded lenses I know (the 85mm being the most sharp). So seems strange that RF 70-200mm would be that soft. Dustin is extremely knowledgeable and trustworthy but maybe there is some quality variation and his sample was among the worst. For that price there really shouldn't be noticeably variation...

[@badazzdogz8696]

Thank you so much for a PHOTO use and not video use comparison. So much great info. and I hope people watch the whole thing. Something you mention and mattered to me was to remember that the crop ability (Higher MP) in the body used makes a difference in post. As a predominantly sports photographer, Im often challenged with high risk tight shots or safer shots that may need cropping in post. Im not really enthused by the extending barrel, but perhaps thats just old fashioned of me ;)

[@corbinpearce7686]

Years late to this conversation, but something I don't see anyone talk about is how the RF version now has an extending barrel. In my opinion, this nullifies what was one of the greatest, but often overlooked, benefits of the EF version. The EF 70-200 is as weather sealed of a system as possible. There are moving elements, but they're all within a static housing, making the lens a tank against storms and bad weather. The extending barrel on the RF gives an avenue for dust and moisture to work their way into the internals of the lens, a risk I wouldn't want to take spending nearly $3000 on it. The RF 70-200 might be sharper and a bit faster and more accurate on the autofocus, but I don't think it will replace the EF mount as a sports/bad weather lens.

[@cameralabs]

Didn't I talk about this lens having an extending barrel and the implications of that in the review? Ultimately we'll have to wait and see how they perform long-term. Canon says they're fully sealed, but only time will tell.

[@corbinpearce7686]

@@cameralabs I may have missed it! I often watch videos while working on projects and can space out. In any case, I just feel "fully sealed" or not, any moving part is an additional weak point, and an extending barrel definitely counts.

[@cameralabs]

@@corbinpearce7686 certainly, historically an extending barrel wouldn't have been as good as a fixed, sealed one. We just have to hope that developments in lens engineering and materials can achieve things today that they couldn't ten years ago. Again, only time will tell, but Canon's certainly heavily invested in this strategy.

[@grantbeachy2314]

Fantastic review. I've owned 3 of the EF versions (vII), and now the RF, and this reflects my experience exactly. You won't go wrong with either lens, but the weigh and size advantages of the RF is wonderful and better close focus has been much more helpful than I imagined it would be in tight spaces for event and wedding photography. Not needing an adaptor is another serious benefit. I'm very happy with the RF and I sold the EF soon afterwards with no regrets, other than the fact that the EF is selling pretty cheaply now. If you are on a budget and just need quality images, grab the EF. The used prices are fantastic. If you want a lens for the next 5 years or more, and are shooting mirrorless I'd get the RF.

[@scienceandmathHandle]

Quick question, does it bother you at all that the lens extends? That was one of the things I loved about the EF version, is that it didn't extend out at all. In my early photography days, when I could not afford nice lenses, it bothered me that my cheap lenses extended out way beyond what their pictures on ads and reviews showed. And over time the zoom locks tended to degrade. Just curious. I am slowly replacing my EF lenses atm and I have been curious about that.

[@grantbeachy]

@@scienceandmathHandle So I've been using this lens constantly and it has aged well. Better in fact than the old 70-200 mkII which I had to have rebuilt. I was worries about the extending focus, but no dust so far and it doesn't really seem to extend by itself with gravity when on a camera strap. As an example of the amount of use, there are large portions of the tripod foot that are worn smooth to metal because of how much it stays on my side with a dual camera strap, but the lens has been pretty flawless.

[@scienceandmathHandle]

@@grantbeachy Thanks for the response. That's good to know.

[@leonloya1180]

As always the reviews by Gordon Laing are professional, very matter of fact, technical, thorough and to the point. I greatly appreciate his evaluations.

[@cameralabs]

Thanks! Look out for my RF 100-500 review soon!

[@nickfdsasdf6540]

Thanks for the detailed comparison on focus breathing and magnification. I spent hours trying to figure this out before buying into RF as I wanted to see if I could replace our 105mm Macro for ring shots (wedding photographer) and use the RF 70-200. I was a little disappointed to test it after buying to see the actual magnification wasn't much better....but like you noticed it's significantly sharper. We sold our Macro and will just crop in with the RF when doing ring shots. Nice to lighten our load and simplify our workflow.

[@tkermi]

The RF 70-200mm Dustin Abbott just tested was surprisingly soft when wide open and to get reasonable corner sharpness it required a lot of stopping. Maybe it was a bad unit 🤔? Here's the link: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rXi8goRorK5kgLM

[@stargator4945]

The EF lens has the advantage to support Teleconverters. The RF ones have lenses nearly in front of the sensors, so no Canon teleconverter will fit. The EF lens however can turn into a 100-280 f4 zoom with a small teleconverter. For the RF lens you have to pay some wopping $$$$ to get the 100-500 which does support teleconverter but only from 300-500mm. I think Canon users have to adapt to it. Or we have to wait for 3rd party converters that can cope with lenses in the rear section of the RF Telezooms. BTW the Canon EF lens Adapter is made so that the RF Teleconverters do not fit into the converter.

[@jittisoolt5927]

Mr. Laing, your reviews are excellent - relevant and comprehensive. Your mode of speech is clear. Your presentation inviting. You have an everyman-type look that makes you come across as friendly and charismatic, whilst never breaking your professional demeanor. You come across as objective and very respective of your viewer. Well done! I’ve found myself picking your reviews over others to binge watch videos regarding the Canon RF system. I know there’s a real person behind the creator, and I want to assure you that there are real people behind the consumers of your material. And here is one real person saying thank you for your efforts!

[@cameralabs]

Thankyou! I hope you're enjoying my other RF reviews. I'll post my RF 85mm f2 review tomorrow!

[@AdamAllen]

I'm loving Canon's resurgence! Great review as always.

[@cameralabs]

Thanks, and yes, they're really smashing it right now!

[@Vaptomwen]

I have seen this lens alongside the other trinity of f/2.8 & it blew me away, stunning . Agreed as long no dust pump, an absolute must have RF, interesting to test again with the R5 & it’s new approach to image stabilisation. Exciting times for Canon again after so long.

[@cameralabs]

Yes, I agree!

[@joejoe8948]

Looking forward to canon coming out with similar compact F4 model.

[@swepper1]

you know what, it's about to happen :)

[@TheTimePostChannel]

I'm glad you're ok, we all love to watch your videos bro, so please take care and stay safe 👍🏻

[@cameralabs]

Thanks! Yes, I'm fine here, still working hard on these videos for you all! Luckily I got loads of sample photos with it before this all kicked-off.

[@andrear9500]

Thank you very much for this great review, in a time where many channels struggle to create the usual content.

[@itaylorm]

Very helpful and detailed. I was on the fence about buying this lens. You helped me make my decision to get one

[@godofhope]

Tony Northrup loves the Canon 70-200 and this prevented him to change completely to Nikon back in the days because of the lack of focus breathing on close distances. Very disappointing to see the new lens falls short here.

[@cameralabs]

The new lens may shrink the image due to breathing at v close range, but as I illustrated, compensates for it by letting you focus closer than most 70-200s. My point was that reading the 0.7m spec may make you think it'll be a big improvement in magnification, when it is in fact more modest. But it is still an improvement, and the result is sharper too. So all in all, I think the RF is superior for closeups, but not by as much as the specs imply.

[@michellamarche6822]

Yes but 2.35x instead of 2.85x at 200mm is disapointing. Around 23% less magnification for 50% more expensive than the EF.

[@TheVFXbyArt]

Thanks for the thorough walk thru... you answered many of my question regarding the value of transitioning to RF glass.

[@eliaspap8708]

Interesting comparison! If the only noticeable difference is size and weight! It goes to show how good the EF version really is, maybe even ahead of its time. I would be very hesitant to pay an additional 50% in price just for the fact it’s smaller and lighter, the R lens would also need to have a much better AF keeper accuracy rate compared to the EF for me to even consider the up in price.

[@jan-hendrikbussmann4644]

A very, very good review, covering actual useful information I have not seen in any other review yet. The magnification comparisons give an interesting insight on how lens constructions that are so different from each other influence the resulting images. I would have never guessed just by looking at the spec sheets of these two lenses. I have switched to Sony 18 months ago, but I still have and very much intend to keep my Canon 70-200 2.8L Mark II lens. I love that beast, and while adapting does cost me autofocus performance, it still shoots portraits just as good as on my old camera. Many thanks to you, Gordon, for a job well done (as always).

[@cameralabs]

Thanks and you're very welcome!

[@dominey]

Great review Gordon. In general, this feels like a very expensive window-of-time to be investing in RF lenses, especially if you already own comparable EF equivalents. Canon is charging a serious premium on their RF lenses because they can. Here's hoping once players like Sigma get in the RF game (weren't they supposed to announce something by now?) we'll see more reasonable pricing.

[@cameralabs]

I agree most have been quite pricey, but then they have all offered excellent performance - and some, like the 15-35mm f2.8L IS USM which i'm reviewing next - are actually quite close in price to the EF version. But I do agree that so far most EOS R owners probably own a Canon DSLR and are adapting existing EF lenses. and as we know, some of them are really good.

[@vhc7764]

Excellent unbiased review as always...greatly appreciated. Well the RF is a beautiful lens, but I'm not sure I can justify the price considering the EF VII/III are quite similar in performance and I'm keen on the made in Japan metal vs plastic. Perhaps Canon will consider an RF price adjustment for Santa's visit--I eagerly await the holiday sales and I'm not referring to the used RF lens junk on ebay. Happy & Safe Holidays Gordon!

[@cameralabs]

Thanks, you too!

[@aymw9259]

I've seen 3 video reviews about the Canon 70mm-200mm f/2.8 comparison. Your video reviews is the BEST. The way you are reviewing these lenses feature and functions only Professional photographer and Professional videographer are looking for. I know some amateur photographer may not understand you. I am sure they will understand why you review the magnification of each lens in the future. I subscribed your Channel. MAN. You are GOOD. You will get more and more subscriber in the future. Keep up the GOOD WORK.

[@cameralabs]

Thanks, I'm glad you enjoy my approach!

[@JonathanPetersonlisten2EITS]

Wow! What a thorough, brilliant comparison of these two powerhouse lenses. Great images around Brighton too!

[@cameralabs]

Thanks! I'll be posting a similarly-structured video about the RF 15-35mm hopefully on Monday!

[@rdm5546]

I will keep my current, "already paid-for" EF 70-200mm iii. Current EF 70-200 iii seems more rugged and might be quicker/easier control ring to zoom 70-200 with more control to me.

[@JackFN_VR64]

6:24 I'd say the IS on the RF is decisively better.

[@tarjei99]

What I'm missing from the lenshood is a mechanism for attaching camoflage. That is something that keeps the camo in place without having a hook that might intrude over the edge of the lens hood.

[@gameshoes]

The focus breathing is a little disappointing to see. Nonetheless, this seems to be an improvement overall. The one thing I'm curious about is if the longer throw on the zoom ring is inconvenient for some photographers.

[@cameralabs]

The breathing is disappointing, but overcome in most scenarios by the closer focusing distance. It compensates for macro and makes minimal difference at portrait or longer distances...

[@MrPixelspin]

Perfect review. All I need to know. I have owned the original EF version for a long time, and was blown away by the improvements with the version II. I also shot with the version III on a rented kit and that was incredible as well. I now own the RF version but still waiting for the delivery of my R5. It's good to see the RF easily keeps up with the EF III.

[@saudi4us]

Such an incredible review ... Keep up the great reviews ... Cheers

[@samuell.hodgesjr.1577]

I settled on the EF model for now. The price fitted my budget. I shall later try the RF model. I think that both of the glasses give acceptable performance in quality. Nice review. Thanks for sharing.

[@propylaeen]

is there anyone else feeling the EF bokeh over the whole trinity much more buttery creamy than the RF bokeh to my eyes it comes with more nervous edging especially with leaves and greens in the background? Great review... as always the best reviews out here!

[@tomrhardwick]

A really good and comprehensive review Gordon, and I bet the close-focus tests you've done are an eye-opener for many. One thought though. Cylindrical hoods are ALWAYS less efficient than petal hoods, and I'll take efficiency over stand-upability any day of the week.

[@cameralabs]

Glad you found it useful!

[@cl330b]

Hi Gordon. At 11:08 in the video, you stated that both lenses were the same distance from the subject. I am curious, were both of these shots taken with the EOS R? If so, you would have had to use the EF/RF adapter. Wouldn't this put the sensor at a different distance from the subject? Correct me if I'm wrong but, the EF/RF adapter changes the back-focus distance and that could potentially influence the magnification. Great video as always. Thank you for the informative content!

[@cameralabs]

Yes they were the same distance, as measured from the sensor plane. I adjusted it.

[@GregThurtle]

thanks for the review Gordon - can't be easy in current conditions! I think I prefer the rendering of the older EF lens when it comes to slightly better bokeh balls in your test. I note that neither are 'silent' when you focus using inbuilt motors. AF speed seemed comparable. Interested in your comment about a better hit rate AF wise with the RF lens. Might be a while until we see steven seagull again! thanks for the review and stay safe!

[@cameralabs]

Thanks Greg, I'm pretty limited in where I can shoot at the moment!

[@vimalneha]

This is a great comparison. Better than any other. I will go for older EF lens.

[@lifesbeautiful3024]

Very good review, but I would respectfully disagree with you saying that this is “the first killer lens for the EOS R system.” The RF 50 1.2 and RF 85 1.2 are very much killer lenses. And the 24-70, 15-35, and really the 24-105 are also.

[@cameralabs]

Those are definitely all great lenses, but the only ones that are genuinely different so far are the 28-70 and the 70-200, and of the two, the 70-200 is the one that'll attract the most people to the system, so that's why I'm saying it's the first true killer lens.

[@cameralabs]

@@frostybe3r and that's your choice! I know event shooters who'd hand over the extra cash to have something more manageable, plus the prices will fall on the Rf model, it's brand new right now.

[@loriolus]

@@cameralabs 70-200 is mostly different in shape... but the RF 50 1.2 is vastly superior to the EF 50 1.2 in every way.

[@cagf2013]

@@loriolus agreed. The 50mm f1.2 is a killer lens... Canon has never had a truly great 50mm until now

[@yamahass66]

Thanks for the review! Do you remember what cameras you used for the different lenses or is it the same? One of the outside shot had better dynamic range. Also may i ask you what the top 3 or so wide zoom lenses are the absolut sharpest sharpest for a normal price like 1000 euros or something? EF 16-35/2,8L USM II or 16-40?

[@cameralabs]

I don't recall which bodies, but I normally state it in my videos before the tests. Did I not mention it? Probably R5 or R6

[@ursberger4380]

I own the EF lens and I am absolutly happy with it. Greetings from Switzerland 🇨🇭

[@cameralabs]

Greetings from the UK!

[@michaelbyz23]

Lovely lens. I am still using ef 2.8 is I on all my studio works.. Will definitely upgrade to this one day.

[@neighborsgoat]

In wildlife shooting, I miss the manual focus adjustments when in autofocus of the EF lens. In the RF, they completely decoupled the focussing ring when in autofocus, so you cannot manually correct a last second focus error, just before taking a difficult shot.

[@cameralabs]

yes, although some companies are implementing it as full-time direct manual focus - Sony allows it now on some products.

[@IntothewestOkotoks]

I love my 70-200 EF III, and I use it primarily for shooting hockey...I think the extending zoom of the RF would annoy me (especially when shooting up close against glass). As great as it is tho, I don’t take it for personal travel due to size...and the fact the bright white and red ring stick out too much! I wish Canon would make less flashy versions of these lol

[@cameralabs]

Yes, you're right, the extending barrel would get annoying behind glass.

[@julieholland9639]

MMM the lighter weight sounds great with the RF but I hate extending barrels, with the EF I can move the focal length in and out with a fingernail which I think will be unlikely with an extending barrel. In any case I think I will wait a few years before upgrading to canon mirrorless cameras and lenses

[@cameralabs]

Remember you can also successfully adapt EF lenses to RF bodies.

[@julieholland9639]

@@cameralabs yes I know, I already use Fuji for mirrorless and still DSLR with my canons, love both

[@aruraru6644]

Thank you, especially for focus breathing test.

[@foodnjusticelover13]

Best comparison/review of this great lens, thanks!

[@silentrice7399]

This is the first time I had ever watched a video from this channel. Honestly amazing content

[@MatthewGlenn26196]

Very thorough and well done video! Mine is on order for my RP.

[@cameralabs]

Hope you like it!

[@Dangmaar]

Amazing review. I will stay on the EF 70-200 mount , the price is too high for me. There's a rumor that with the next Canon EOS R5, IBIS + IS will work only with RF mount that could be an amazing point for RF mount..... do you believe it ? Last question: Do you think dust could be a challenge on that RF obj ?

[@skyecommander2169]

Been watching your video's since researching my very first camera, the Canon Powershot SX10 IS. Great work as always Gordon. I currently own the EF 70-200 III, nice to see how it compares to the RF version.

[@MrShadowsports]

Another superb review Gordon. Thank you!

[@mikezupancic2182]

Wow, what an absolutely incredible review. I know that the EF V3 lens has the new coatings which help greatly when aimed toward sun/lights and I was wondering how this new RF performed. Seems just as good. This is going to be a very tough decision for me as I have the EF version and am waiting very patiently for the R5 to come out as they tout it as a sports camera. (I'm currently using a 1Dx and an R.)

[@cameralabs]

Thanks, glad you found it useful!

[@AugmentedGravity]

I think selling the 1DX and the R to get the R5 which can replace both and buy the RF 70-200 instead is a good choice. I am not the one to make this decision for you though.

[@photographerjonathan]

Would like to see a good comparison to the new Tamron 70/180 f2.8 E mount.

[@cameralabs]

It'll be reviewed on cameralabs.com as soon as we have it.

[@photographerjonathan]

not just a review, a comparison please.

[@cameralabs]

@@photographerjonathan all of my reviews have comparisons. Check cameralabs.com for this one when it's complete.

[@nosignal7156]

9:06 Gordon I wish wold had stayed a bit silent in this part of the video so we could actually listen by ourselves how noisy each lens is relative to each other.

[@goguhu]

Do you think the IS is better, or is it just that the lens is shorter/lighter so it's easier to hold it still?

[@ericgrayphoto]

Do you feel the camera still needs a battery grip with the new, smaller lighter lens?

[@The_Idea_of_Dream_Vision]

Hi Gordon. Why do the EF images looks brighter compared to the rf

[@raksh9]

HAHAHA that shot of the lens hood tumbling through space at 6.40, it's like watching 2001 A Space Odyssey 😁

[@colinrogers5006]

Excellent review GL. Thank you

[@cameralabs]

You're welcome!

[@siegfriednoet]

Very thorough review Gordon, did you do a test on the R5 in the meanwhile ?

[@cameralabs]

Why yes I have! It's part of my RF f4 review: kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5K8p5qvmZWIo7c

[@anthonymorrison4082]

Amazingly review I just got the EF lens and I am exchanging it to the RF-based on this review Thank you.

[@cameralabs]

You're very welcome!

[@michaellekas27]

Excellent review. I have the EF version ( 3rd generation) and can’t justify changing to the rf version since image quality is pretty much the same. Yes the size is an advantage. Curious but have you compared the rf and EF versions of the 24-70mm f2.8?? Same results as with the 70-200mm ?

[@cagf2013]

The RF lens certainly looked a bit sharper everywhere. That combined with the reduced size and weight make it a really great lens

[@homerhorowitz7649]

Thanks for that incredible review! I’m considering upgrading from the ef version 2 and as a full time commercial and wedding photographer, I’ll be happy to save some weight and it seems like a good move. Especially with the adapter on my r5, the old EF is a lot to lug around. The closer focusing could also be nice for tighter spaces but i’m a bit confused about the focus breathing. I get that the rf is giving a wider field of view but is that only when focused close? I really enjoy using a telephoto lens like this for landscape and environmental portraits and love how it can make a far away subject appear much larger (mountains, the moon..). Is there a difference in the compression of the two lenses when focused at more normal distances or is that just a thing when close focusing?

[@GOAP68]

Would gladly trade more weight for an internal zoom. I photograph animals. Hiding movement is often critical. I didn't see a mention of the difference in the twist angel required to zoom. The EF version's throw makes it easy to smoothly go from 70 to 200. Other reviewers have commented that you can't go from 70 to 200 on the RF without a regrip. That will cause lost shots for my style of photography. I have the same issue with Canon's 200-400. 400 to ~235-250 is the most I can consistently get without regripping.

[@PhilSledge]

Do you think there will be a long term review of the RF lens ?

[@cameralabs]

Not from me. There's nothing more I can add other than to comment on how people are finding the mechanism and weather sealing over time - and that's going to anecdotal.

omg, the little Christmas tree, was the camera on the same position when recording that zoom video??? The zoom and compression looks so different between them. Kinda preferring the EF. But the new stabilization on the RF is just too great to ignore

[@cameralabs]

Yep, same position.

[@solandri69]

During the bokeh video test, you mention that the RF 70-200mm adjusted its focus as needed. Is it not parafocal? The EF 70-200 is parafocal. You focus on something, and the focus point remains the same regardless of how you adjust the zoom. When I need absolute perfect focus at wider angles on the EF 70-200, I zoom to 200mm, focus, then zoom back to 70mm.

[@cameralabs]

it is mostly parfocal, but you can hear the focus adjusting as I zoom-in

[@andysmith1595]

I found i didnt need the collar on rf version so I removed it, im unsure why they installed it

[@mtstans]

really thorough review! Keep it up!

[@cameralabs]

Thanks, there was a LOT of work in this one...

[@mtstans]

@@cameralabs It's appreciated, although reviews like this make my first lens for my R5 when it releases a tough decision.

[@Hubieee]

Great comparison. Both great lenses. As usual. Lightweight and compactness lead to RF. The price, no great leap optical wise and external zoom of the RF lead to the EF. If you have an EF, probably only the kid inside of you wants a new shiny toy.

[@eggyjones]

hope you are keeping safe and well pal. Thanks for this but not sure many photographers are going to be buying new gear anytime soon. Great to see you still working bud, take care

[@cameralabs]

Thanks! I think once we're back to normal this will become a big seller for Canon.

[@tomhalbouty3653]

Excellent review. I have the EF 70-200 III and it indeed is an excellent, but hefty lens. If I were a pro using this focal range constantly, I would go for the RF. I tend to believe most hobbyist might find the EF V3 useful because, with a 2X teleconverter this lens really challenges the 100-400 EF lens for medium range wildlife photography. My R5 and my wallet are happy with the EF III, though my back would definitely prefer the RF.

[@姚仁全]

Thanks for the great review! Is it able to have a review for RF 24-240 walk-around lens for EOS R series camera owners?

[@cameralabs]

YES! I actually have it now, but not sure when my review will be finished.

[@姚仁全]

@@cameralabs Great thanks! Look forward to seeing your review.

[@maxfactor4209]

Great review as expected. Stay safe Gordon.

[@cameralabs]

Thanks, you too!

[@yuehuang3419]

Great Review. Do you have any info if this lens would or could take the upcoming lens extender? Is there much space between rare element?

[@cameralabs]

Good question, but I'm, afraid I don't know yet.

[@bradleyzimmerman4184]

The IS test for stills blew my mind! I couldn't believe you achieved such a slow shutter speed being Mr. Shakey Hands. When it comes to testing image stabilization, you're the reviewer I trust most specifically because of that. No disrespect intended in any way either. I really need you to know that because I don't want to offend you. It is what it is. Vloggers watch you vlogging with damn near, if not every lens and camera combo that comes out because of that too. I know people who are as rock steady as a giant boulder on flat ground. Others like me have more of a drunken sway when trying to be super still. Caffeine hands are jittery. The IS systems in both the lenses and the camera bodies coming out in the last few years are truly extraordinary! I know a portrait photographer with Parkinson's that had to give up shooting handheld with natural light. He has since bought an Olympus camera utilizing body and lens IS in tandem. He has gone back shooting handheld. Incredible! I sincerely hope Canons new cameras do well with IBIS. It opens up so many doors for mostly static subjects that only a handful of years ago was nothing more than a dream. I mean it is just so hard to believe that an Olympus camera using lens and body IS together can get sharp 8 second exposures. We live in a great time!

[@cameralabs]

Thanks, and I appreciate your comments!

[@fyfefyfe1]

Gordon, your video is crisp! Thank you!

[@cameralabs]

That's what I aim for!

[@leotrotzky3889]

Thank you for this nice review. So if I got it right than the EF 70-200mm compares to the RF like the RF being roughly a 62-180mm.

[@cameralabs]

At close range the magnification of the RF version reduces.

[@leotrotzky3889]

@@cameralabs And not on the wide range?

[@skakdosmer]

It seems the colours of the EF are warmer than those of the RF? By the way, I assume you measured the distance to the subject from the sensor?

[@cameralabs]

Yes

[@nanidhana6105]

How to clean lens cleaning and I have recently faced lens error problem how to clean the lens

[@PeteSlater]

Great review Gordon, thanks. I would really love to grab one of these RF 70-200 lenses but my problem is that I shoot across EF, RF and M series bodies. This means that any RF lens is limiting my body choice to just the R series whereas an EF lens can be used across the entire range. So even though the RF lenses are looking like the best bet for sharpness, they are the least usable for me :( Keep up the good work. Look forward to the next video.

[@cameralabs]

You're absolutely right, although in Canon's World, RF is the future long-term.

[@MarathaRoyals]

Which is better lens for Portrait photography? RF85/50mm f1.2 or this? I rented the 50mm and 85mm but the angle was too tight while shooting with both of them . Compared to those how is it with this lens? I am assuming, considering 70mm it will be too tighter than 50mm?

[@cameralabs]

Yes, the bigger the number, the tighter it will be. So 70 will be less than 85 but more than 50.

[@mariobelic6594]

Thanks for nice review. It seems that this RF lens is not compatibile with future RF tele-extenders. Rear lens element is too close to sensor and there is no space for extender to fit ? EF versions are very usable with both 1.4X and 2.0X extenders.

[@cameralabs]

I'm not sure about TC compatibility yet as they haven't released RF TCs yet, but yes, it is definitely a factor to consider.

[@edadan]

Thanks Gordon! I just bought the R6 and the 24mm-70mm f/2.8 lens. I’m on the fence about which lens to get next...70mm-200mm f/2.8 or 85mm f/1.2. Any recommendations would be appreciated!

[@cameralabs]

Only you can answer that! It of course depends on what you want to shoot and at what fl? Remember you already have a 70mm f2.8, so unless you want to go beyond, say, 135, then I'd go for the 85 prime. But if you prefer to shoot longer fls in the 135-200 range, then the zoom would be better.

[@photographybyliamanderson1659]

is the IS any use when photographing stuff like a wedding like a speech or such?

[@cameralabs]

yes

[@Crazeddingo]

When you did the focus breathing tests did you have the end of the lens on the same location or the body of the camera and what type of difference would that make?

[@cameralabs]

It was with the lens mounted on a tripod

[@Crazeddingo]

@@cameralabs OK so the lens gets closer as you zoom in. Thank you Great review.

[@billzidis2656]

I like the idea of a smaller 70-200 lens but this definately will suck some dust inside

[@cameralabs]

Not necessarily. It will suck air, but there are filters for particles. Only time will tell.

[@edgorochowski9709]

An excellent review as always, Thank you.

[@mikewinburn]

outstanding presentation, Gordon.

[@cameralabs]

Thanks Mike! I'm doing the 15-35mm next...

[@mikewinburn]

@@cameralabs - fantastic... looking forward to it

[@MatEvanz]

Hey Gordon, Do I still qualify for the 'Holy Trinity' if I have a RF 15-35 F/2.8L - RF 28-70 F/2L - RF 70-200 F/2.8? What are my drawbacks to this team?

[@cameralabs]

You've got the extra holy trinity there!

[@bikesandbeats4693]

Just picked up a BRAND NEW EF 70-200 f2.8 III on eBay for $1699. Hard to justify the jump to the RF at that price.

[@harrison00xXx]

950€ here, Mk2 version 2nd hand. Totally worth the price (and MUCH MUCH BETTER than the 75-300 IS USM trash lens it replaced)

[@TechnoMonkeyFarm]

The EF lens produced better colours in the portraits, or am I missing something?

[@mikester1290]

I've got a 70D and I want to upgrade to a camera with far superior low light performance, but the price of these lenses are just crippling to a non pro. Or for me at least.

[@sethmoyer]

I ended up getting an old 80-200 f/2.8 "Magic Drainpipe" and adapting it on to my EOS RP. It works great, and apart from being big and heavy there isn't much of a way to tell the difference between it and the newer EF 70-200mm lenses, although I do think the version III one is slightly better, and obviously the new RF one is slightly better too.

[@debimiller1538]

Great video thanks for the information!

[@cameralabs]

Thanks, you're very welcome!

[@ivorottleymusic]

But you can't use a teleconverter with it, so its severely limited.

[@ItsTomRich]

Gordon, think I’ve seen you out shooting in Brighton?! Fellow Brightonian here and photo/video KZbinr! Subscribed!

[@cameralabs]

Please do stop me and say hello if you see me!

[@MrPixelspin]

I have purchased this lens a month ago, and used it this weekend for the first time. I noticed that while unlocked and while walking with the lens by my side the lens wil "zoom in" on it's own. So when I put the lens on 70mm and don't lock it, it suddenly will be at 200mm when I start using it again. Can you maybe tell me if this is normal behavior for this lens, or should I go back to the shop?

[@cameralabs]

It's normal

[@MrPixelspin]

@@cameralabs Good to hear, and thanks for your very fast reply.

[@tap6943]

Why are choices so tough? :( Upgrade to the RF vs. Keep the EF and acquire the RF F4?

[@boylang2]

Hi Gordon, Thank you for your review. I'm wondering if you, or someone here in the comments could give me some advice? I'm an enthusiastic amateur photographer (mainly street and travel photography). I'm shooting with the R5 and RF 24-70 - but was thinking about investing in a second lens. Something a little nicer for portraits (better BG separation etc). I can really only afford to get one quality lens right now. So thinking either an 85mm 1.2/1.4 or this 70-200 RF 2.8 - Any thoughts or advice? Thanks so much

[@cameralabs]

Would you be happy with a fixed lens at 85mm length? It will obviously give you much shallower DOF effects BUT it won't zoom. You can imagine it by zooming to 70 on your 24-70 and imagine being cropped about 20% further. If you want longer, then you should get the 70-200

[@boylang2]

@@cameralabs thank you Gordon. This is helpful. Yes I think the zoom, size and dof of a prime is prob a better fit for what I need.