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

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/...
Gordon's In Camera book at Amazon: amzn.to/2n61PfI / Amazon uk: amzn.to/2mBqRVZ
Cameralabs merch: redbubble.com/...

[@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...

[@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.

[@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 ;)

[@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!

[@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!

[@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!

[@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!

[@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.

[@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

[@raksh9]

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

[@ursberger4380]

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

[@cameralabs]

Greetings from the UK!

[@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.

[@cagf2013]

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

[@rickymcc9072]

Perhaps it's high time that Sony started to use their R&D wedge to upgrade their heavy GM 70-200? Tamron and Canon have shown it's possible to make this class of lens smaller/lighter without sacrificing IQ, so it's high time Sony started looking at how to go one better with class leading IQ, best build quality etc etc.

[@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.

[@colinrogers5006]

Excellent review GL. Thank you

[@cameralabs]

You're welcome!

[@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.

[@bird271828]

Gordon, your reviews are thorough, and I enjoy watching them. But this lens is so good and expensive that if I buy one, I won't have any money left to buy an EOS R body😂🤣🤦‍♂️🤦‍♀️

[@cameralabs]

We all need to start saving!

[@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 ?

[@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

[@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

[@ayfj4572]

Fantastic review Gordon. I would love it however sticking with my Mk II.

[@cameralabs]

Thanks!

[@tap6943]

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

[@ericgrayphoto]

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

[@MrPedrocourelas]

Thank you Sony for make Canon do this. Now we are waiting a FE 70-200 2.8 ii with 800gr.

[@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.

[@AugmentedGravity]

Damn that RF is good.

[@nobimathew9092]

Old is gold..I like ef lenses..No extra quality to pay 50% more for rf lenses...

[@cameralabs]

Those are list prices, so I've already seen the gap become narrower, but the real reason you'd want this is the smaller and lighter size. But as I said in the video, the EF model is still brilliant.

[@nobimathew9092]

@@cameralabs ..i am ready to carry big lenses.. Thank you 😍

[@Rexxthespecialist]

Nobi Mathew I sold my cuz the size and weight and if you use the adapter is even longer. I like the quality of the EF version but I was always avoiding carrying around for the same issues described before.

[@HwL01]

Gordon: RF70-200 is the first killer lens for RF mount… RF50 1.2: Am I a joke to you…

[@AugmentedGravity]

I think pretty much all the RF lenses are killer when it comes to the quality they give you at least

[@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.

[@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?

[@danielson_9211]

Debating about the two the rf is new but i hate it has to external zoom (dust long term) and you can't use an extender on the rf which is a big downfall ( every been to a zoo?) wish they came out with a internal zoom rf I would buy it in a heartbeat.

[@matthiasb7853]

Iam not a native english speaker so I have to ask: did you say this lens is more a 70-145mm?

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@wolfeb99]

Terrific. As usual

[@cameralabs]

Thanks!

[@sendykumalakanta1]

Is it just me, or am I the only one liking the warmer tones of the old 70-200, plus, I really really can't see that sharpnes of the new RF unless the image is magnified 100%, and still, I can't say it is by much...

[@cameralabs]

The colour differences could be the varying lighting conditions I shot under.

[@sendykumalakanta1]

@@cameralabs Well, maybe, but the old EF has a lot warmer, almost goldish tint to it, much more pleasing to the eye, at least for me. That's something I noticed when using EF lenses on my Sony A7III as well, the pictures got that warmer punchier tone in yellows and reds... Idk... again, maybe its just me :) Love your reviews by the way, and I was in search of the two 70-200 comparison. Actually I am very interested to see all of the same focal lenght comparisons of the EF and RF lines :) Keep up the great work, love your chanle!!!

[@mrv3n846]

with killer price

[@johnmostert7745]

Can you fit an extender (1.4x or 2.

[@cameralabs]

I dont think so, but check Canon's website specs for it

[@h3llb3nd4]

Good thing this lens wont make a dent to my bank account. Because I can't even afford to buy it at all...

[@cameralabs]

I can't afford it either, but it's still fun to watch. I hope you didn't thumbs-down my video.

[@CurbSideManor]

Hope all is going well for you and yours. Will be sending you coffee AND danish on me. Love your channel. You take care, and I'll be watching.

[@avinashrai11141]

Rf version looks much duller.

[@cameralabs]

how?

[@avinashrai11141]

@@cameralabs At 17.35, Ef version rendered much saturated and eye pleasing colour ( at least for my eyes and on my screens).

[@donniepirelli4668]

Plastic and extending zoom. Not very professional. Hard pass. What a shame.

[@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.

[@joejoe8948]

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

[@swepper1]

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

[@AdamAllen]

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

[@cameralabs]

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

[@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)

[@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.

[@timboh8776]

Hey man ! I bumped into you in Bond st coffee last summer! You were so helpful and kind. I just posted my GoPro Virgin Islands video edit, using Nd filters. I would love you to check it out. Starting to get into this!

[@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.

[@JackFN_VR64]

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

[@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.

[@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

[@jamesjin8839]

Yo, are you alright? A clip is showing you hands are shaking(starting 6:43). Too much coffee?Too cold? or are you developing parkinsons? Take care of yourself.

[@cameralabs]

Thanks for your concern - I've been like this most of my adult life

[@jamesjin8839]

@@cameralabsI see. Starting of the video showed the same with the shaking especially when you weighted 2 lenses in your hands. I hope it won't develop further. Take good care. Cameralbs provided a lot of vital/valid information(those corners 100% crops at 5.6/8)that helped tremendously for me to choose lenses for my adventures. I appreciate your work very much.

[@kruzeing]

first killer lens for the EOS R? My RF 28-70 f/2L begs to differ

[@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.

[@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.

[@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 ?

[@ktcool4660]

Extending barrel is a major ergonomic flaw. EF is more saturated.

[@cameralabs]

I can see why some people would prefer a non-extending barrel, but conversely it does make it a lot more portable. I wouldn't describe it as a flaw, more of a choice. Both are great lenses, so we can choose the one that best suits us. I'm glad they tried something different for that reason.

[@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.

[@ivorottleymusic]

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

[@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

[@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...

[@aruraru6644]

Thank you, especially for focus breathing test.

[@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

[@TheVFXbyArt]

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

[@vimalneha]

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

[@itaylorm]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@michaelbyz23]

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

[@The_Idea_of_Dream_Vision]

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

[@gameover173dkt]

Everything made in Japan will be good and better !!! 👍 LOL

[@cameralabs]

Everything made to the standard that the manufacturer pays for will be good and better REGARDLESS of where the factory is located.

[@esplak]

Compared to the older lens you gain: a bit more sharpness considerable weight saving better IS futureproofing You loose: versality (zoom needs to turn more) internal focusing slightly less pleasing bokeh more compatibility with existing gear. IMO not a clear recommendation

[@harrison00xXx]

Wait, the RF 70-200 TURNS THE FRONT BARREL for focussing? I thought it just extends with zooming. Anyways, im fine with a 2nd hand EF version Mk2, costed less than 1/3 of the RF version (and i prefer EF anyways with the Meike Filter Adapter)

[@andysmith1595]

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

[@brianbrooking496]

Great content, way above my rookie level....

[@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.

[@foodnjusticelover13]

Best comparison/review of this great lens, thanks!

[@rcdigitalstudio4437]

plz do 5d mark 4 vs canon eosr image quality with high iso test

[@cameralabs]

No point, the EOS R uses the 5D4 sensor, so they'll be roughly the same apart from some processing and optical differences.

[@saudi4us]

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

[@Tech1Tv]

RF is sharper than EF, the price difference not worth it though.

[@joelmspencer]

The EF Lens looks so much cooler. Better everything, even the lens hood kicks the RF Lens hoods ass. I'm not sold on paying £2.5k for an extending zoom barrel tbh.

[@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!

[@andrear9500]

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

[@pixelvortexstudio]

Hi Gordon loved your video about the 70-200 RF lens.. i wanted to ask? I'm currently a Canon EOS 7D mk ii camera user. I wanted to upgrade to a mirror less camera. I'm thinking I want to go for the Canon EOS R more than the R6 because of the 30 megapixels.. as im a Photographer and i was looking to purchase the RF 70-200 f2.8 as it has IS, I do also really like the canon RF 28-70 f2, only thing I'm concerned about is there is no IS.. my hands shake a little so I'm not sure if I need the IS more or not. I wanted to ask what your views are on my concerns. I shoot weddings and portraits as well as some macro. My website www.vishninspired.com all photos shot on 7D mkii. I hope to hear your thoughts

[@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.

[@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.

[@Vincent-gt3gx]

The EF is just a better buy, why would I pay 50% more for the same lens with a marginal difference if I show you a picture you could not tell the difference. And in the end, it makes no difference as few people really care.

[@D0NTREPLY]

i really do hate the weight of the original 70-200, its literally like lugging around a dumb bell around. i dont care if the new model is less metal and more plastic, i'll for whatever can give me a lighter lens and is more compact. i'm totally all for the RF varient. thankyou canon for making a much better version of this amazing lens.

[@photographybyliamanderson1659]

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

[@cameralabs]

yes

[@prakashgajjar7940]

Hi I have Canon Mark /2 I’m Using the new lens RF 70 /200 mm 2.8 !!!!! Without aduptur.. Thanks..

[@Stefan1968ful]

The RF 70-200mm 2.8 is a bummer, you can’t use the Teleconverter with it. WTF ??(???€

[@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.

[@chukolna]

Amazing review. thank you.