Canon RF 70-200mm f4L REVIEW vs EF f4L II vs RF f2.8L

Big thanks to Lexar! Check out the Lexar Professional 2000x SD Card at: amzn.to/3cbrxLI
My Canon RF 70-200mm f4L IN-DEPTH review - a surprisingly compact tele-zoom!
Check price at B&H: bhpho.to/3l06Vrh // WEX: tidd.ly/3jPTlad
Buy Gordon a coffee: www.paypal.me/cameralabs
Gordon's In Camera book at Amazon: amzn.to/2n61PfI / Amazon uk: amzn.to/2mBqRVZ
Like Cameralabs? Get the merch: redbubble.com/people/camerala...
Canon RF 70-200mm f4L sample images: www.cameralabs.com/canon-rf-7...
#canon #rf #70-200mm

[@cameralabs]

Big thanks to Lexar! Check out the Lexar Professional 2000x SD Card at: amzn.to/3cbrxLI My Canon RF 70-200mm f4L IN-DEPTH review - a surprisingly compact tele-zoom! Check price at B&H: bhpho.to/3l06Vrh // WEX: tidd.ly/3jPTlad Buy Gordon a coffee: www.paypal.me/cameralabs Gordon's In Camera book at Amazon: amzn.to/2n61PfI / Amazon uk: amzn.to/2mBqRVZ Like Cameralabs? Get the merch: redbubble.com/people/cameralabs/shop Canon RF 70-200mm f4L sample images: www.cameralabs.com/canon-rf-70-200mm-f4l-is-usm-review/ #canon #rf #70-200mm

[@JCustom]

Why would anyone dislike this video. 0 appreciation of someone else's effort to present data FOR FREE.

[@cameralabs]

Thankyou, I wonder this all the time too. I think some people hit dislike as soon as they see a brand they don't like or own, regardless of the quality of the content, and this does penalise the creator with the algorithm.

[@patrickfitzgerald2861]

@@cameralabs Gordon, I respect you too much to watch you try and crawl down the rabbit hole of psychoanalyzing the many and diverse wack jobs on KZbin. For your personal mental stability, please stop. 😎

[@cameralabs]

@@patrickfitzgerald2861 it's way too late for that sadly! Some of them genuinely discourage me from doing certain types of videos or any at all! But I keep going!

[@patrickfitzgerald2861]

@@cameralabs Well Gordon, I would kindly remind you of the fact that if Google required people to authentically identify themselves on YT, 99% of the stupid, cowardly, thoughtless, unconstructive and offensive comments would magically disappear. I only wish I could make it so. 😎

[@alphaandomega2709]

Most times people dumbs downs because of the abusive Square Space ads tbh or when people just talk and talk and talk and talk but never show the product. Gordon has the best reviews next to Christopher Frost

[@nigelwest3430]

Great review, I went for the f4, The extra weight of the 2.8 was the deciding factor

[@bozhu9868]

Thank you! Been waiting for reviews of this lens. The corner performance at f/4 is encouraging. Planning to make this my first RF zoom lens, I only have primes so far. Was initially planning to buy a third prime (one of the 85mm options) but I think this makes more sense.

[@dansomerville]

Gordon, I’ve been following you for probably about 10 years now. Hell, I still even have a bunch of the ‘all about the gear’ podcasts downloaded (miss those by the way). Anyways, just wanted to say keep up the fantastic work! Always the first review I click on because I know it will be detailed, informative and unbiased.

[@cameralabs]

Thanks!

[@MBrady1970]

This guy without a doubt, does the best and most thorough reviews going into all the important details :)

[@cameralabs]

Thanks!

[@k.o.t.o.n.]

@@cameralabs is it wirthz thze rf 2.8 over thze f4 if you want to use it withz teleconverters for wildlife and rarely sportS?

[@cameralabs]

@@k.o.t.o.n. depends how much light you have and how blurred you want the backgrounds to be, and how much weight you're willing to carry - and how much you want to spend! Only you can decide.

[@k.o.t.o.n.]

@@cameralabs i wan tto carrry light and don't care much about too muchz cremy bokehz, according to the test ffotag f4 is great for portraits withzout teleconverters. but thzf5 version with 2x tele, is f8 is too dark, and does the tele loses a lot of autofocus performance and sharpness, it would be a great les, cuse sony didnet make the f4 70-200 to be used withz 2x tele

[@itaylorm]

I was out in the snow this weekend with this wonderful 70-200 F4 lens. Very light and easy to carry around. Made it easy to get the shots I wanted to and to keep the snow off. Excellent review

[@cameralabs]

Me too!

[@terrylevi9717]

I have the RF f4 and I have found its fantastic at everything that I need from a 70mm/200m lens. It comes down to this its compact and light so it comes with me everywhere my old 70mm/200mm was heavy and large so it spent most of the time at home.

[@vivalasvegas702]

Including the EF version and the F2.8 RF version in the comparison made watching worth while, excellent job and thank you Gordon. Besides the FB, Canon still managed to improve the extreme corner sharpness(tad bit) while improving close up(@MFD) clarity and a noticeable snapper AF. Hopefully the 14-35 & 24-70(w/h macro) are in the pipeline for release this year.

[@steveparent8788]

A lot of work involved in this excellent review Gordon. You're a 'master' of reviews. 3 excellent lenses but the size of the RF version is really tempting ! Thanks Gordon !

[@cameralabs]

You're very welcome!

[@antonoat]

Your reviews really do tell me everything I need to know, thank you 😀👍

[@cameralabs]

Thanks! I feel I put everything into this one!

[@antonoat]

@@cameralabs it’s almost enough to make me switch to Canon😉👍😀

[@TobyAngel]

Thank you for this incredibly detailed review. Been trying to justify the rf/2.8 over the rf f/4 and the portrait comparisons sold it for me. It's a shame how the focus breathing impacts close focusing but I don't think we'll see version 2's for some time.

[@zfisher]

Outstanding review, thank you for the detailed approach

[@cameralabs]

Thanks! I think I covered a fair amount!

[@keving7773]

Excellent review as always, One thing that always distinguished the DSLR version was very minimal focus breathing and I'm glad you tested as well.

[@cameralabs]

You're very welcome!

[@JohnSmith-pv4su]

Thanks for your review, I have just bought this lens but have not had the chance to use fully due to the lockdown. The one major thing, all things being equal, is the weight and size. I changed over to the RF system last year and use the Canon R body. One of the reasons was to reduce the weight of the camera gear I was lugging around and this lens does just that.

[@peterebel7899]

Great review for a great lens! Accompanied by the 24-105L 4.0 it is an unmatched compact all around set with premium quality and versatility. Thinking about nature photography my EF 70-200 4.0 was recently replaced by the RF 100-500. Oh boy, what an upgrade as long as you are not about portrait with this lens.

[@King_Flush]

I don't compare these two lenses, and would never sacrifise a 70-200 for a dedicated wildlife lens such as the 100-500mm. I would keep both!

[@bigarnd]

Just found this video and it is top drawer! Well done. Subscribed!

[@snuritdinov]

Thank you, Gordon, as always very informative. Now I'm head-scratching to go with 2.8 or 4 version :-)

[@frankly5171]

The EF version maybe longer but still provides excellent image quality, IS and seems much more robust without the retracting lenses. I feel the EF would survive the rigors of outdoor use over time better. Thanks for the excellent review.

[@BryanTran]

The lexar ad was really informative on what metrics and specs I should look out for when shopping for memory, which I am. Might be willing to give lexar another shot, thanks Gordon

[@cameralabs]

Glad you found it useful!

[@peterfritzphoto]

Always love your reviews, Gordon. And I love my RF 70-200 F4. It’s called Stumpy!

[@lukerabin5079]

I’ve not long switched to Alexa cards with fantastic results. Still only shooting with an R, but holds up beautifully and with .cr3 compressed files, it lets me shoot for a month in Asia no problems at all. Thanks for the as usual brilliant review. I’ve had an older ef f4, which I may upgrade to the RF version. I know everyone swears by the f2.8, but with even the R, f4 is fine, focuses faster and walking around an event for hours at a time, the weight savings makes it much easier.

[@Ramage7070]

@Gordon Laing, another great review that really covers all the questions that I have as a Canon shooter. For me the added cost of the RF glass over the EF is worth it for the size alone. I can get the R5, R6, RF15-36 2.8, RF70-200 2.8, RF 50 1.8, RF 35 1.8 into the Lowpro ProTactic 450AW II with still room for an Atomos and the DJI RSC 2 folded up. I will be getting the RF 70-200 F4 for sure.

[@cameralabs]

It is amazing how little space it occupies

[@andrewphillips2520]

fantastic review Gordon!

[@cameralabs]

Thanks Andrew!

[@hjer731]

Been waiting intently for this!

[@cameralabs]

I hope you enjoy it! It's one of my more in-depth ones!

[@ontheroad_8132]

@Gordon Laing As always, a great explanation and very useful comparison. Thank you Gordon.

[@cameralabs]

You're very welcome!

[@michaelrousseau4373]

Great review 👍 A lot of useful information thanks . I been looking for a 70-200 for my R6 and have been looking at the Tanron 70-200 2.8 g2 but watching this video makes me think the RF lense might be a good choice as well since it will be a little more compact and no adapter

[@benconway2340]

Superb review Gordon! I've had this lens for a week or two now and I've been super curious to see what other people make of it. I love it so far!

[@cameralabs]

Thanks! How are you finding the stabilisation?

[@benconway2340]

@@cameralabs I tried a similar shot at 200mm as you did in the video and toggled between stabilisation on and off. It was absolutely fine and smooth for me and there were no jitters with the stabiliser on 🤷‍♂️

[@andreasfriedl9858]

Another outstanding review. I really have to focus keeping up with the high-density information you deliver.

[@cameralabs]

Thanks, I try to keep you on your toes!

[@andreasfriedl9858]

@@cameralabs I own the EF 70-200/4 IS (version 1), which is outstanding even on the R5 but the smaller size of the RF version is certainly tempting.

[@joelcleare]

I’m looking forward taking this lens on vacation. Finally small and light enough to justify taking it along.

[@kenmack9571]

Another comprehensive and informative review that covers and answers many aspects of the design and operational use in real world use. The clever Canon design changes have maintained quality whilst reducing size and weight . It is a shame that there is such a significant premium to pay over the old EF pricing. Now more than ever you must very carefully consider your professional costs and potential earnings from upgrading many who have the EF glass equivalent especially of recent origin will likely stick a while longer with their kit especially consider the more limited RF teleconverters that add an increase to your costs . Like the bonus card info maybe you could include your tripod head info in the blurb content. Looks like another coffee Gordon !

[@cameralabs]

Thanks Ken! The tripod head is just a Manfrotto 701HDV

[@NickRno77]

I was looking at a 70-200F4 to put on my R5, you’ve convinced me to get a used EF MKII. Saves me a little money and can use a 1.4x Thanks

[@katieteesdale-ward625]

Great video Gordon!

[@cameralabs]

Thanks Katie!

[@AndreiDimaReviews]

As always a great review!

[@cameralabs]

Thanks!

[@royaltykidstv]

For the price, weight, sharpness on the rf f4L, this lens is just the right one to purchase.

[@BR-gi1qi]

just brilliant all around. so well done. thank you!

[@cameralabs]

Thanks! Glad to help!

[@suba1234]

I have the RF 70-200 F4, and it's a wonderful lens. What stopped me from getting the 2.8, besides the price, was that I have the EF 85 1.4L and an old EF 200 F 2.8L, both of which are honeys of lenses. The only shortcoming of the F4 is that in low light, you have to increase ISO sometimes. I often carry the 85 1.4 with me, and it's what I use for portraits for the most part. It's just an unbelievably sharp lens.

[@RideTheTrack]

Thanks for this review, it was awesome!

[@cameralabs]

You're very welcome!

[@DanielFazzari]

Great comparison/review! I have the RF 2.8 version, and *almost* sold it for the ultra small f/4 version, but glad I didn't.

[@cameralabs]

I love them both! The f2.8 is definitely better, but I do love the size of the f4.

[@NVIK5]

Thanks Gordon for the excellent review, the effort and thought that went into this review really shows.

[@cameralabs]

Thankyou, it was a lot of work!

[@monroethechainbreaker8820]

just purchased mine can't wait to receive it

[@muffindell]

Excellent review, I think that I'll stick with my EF version and just monitor the speed of focus and how useable it is in the field before dumping it for the RF version

[@danielwcheng6381]

Thanks for the review Gordon, gotta say the tech specs and sharpeness is all decent for me the closer is the compactness, but is that compactness enough for me to sell my f4 mk 2? Hard to say. I rented the RF 2.8 and it's a great lense but at this point I think it's more of a status /portrait lens. Not sure if it worth the cost. On the hand if money is no object get the best and live with the weight.

[@daemon1143]

Nice work and appreciated the sponsorship vs bombardment with KZbin ads.

[@cameralabs]

Thanks!

[@LiquidTurbo]

Another SUPERB review!

[@cameralabs]

Thankyou, it took AGES!

[@nebulaeimaging]

Great review! It was the exact comparison I was looking for. It answered my questions on whether I should sell my EF F/4 to buy the RF F/4.

[@cameralabs]

You're welcome!

[@CZOV]

I am uber-happy with the EF version, the only problem is its size, not that much the weight but the space it takes in a bag.

[@kamerarp9051]

Amazing review Gordon, Thanks. I've been searching which 70-200 lens is good for my RP camera. I think I will choose the EF 70-200 F4 II lens based on your test result.. Appreciate your effort on this.

[@cameralabs]

You're welcome!

[@SonnyBCreative]

Thank you. im looking into buying this lens

[@MBraun3]

Great Video, nice work!

[@cameralabs]

Thanks!

[@LE672AJ]

Excellent comparison in lovely Brighton as usual. The thing keeping me from switching to the RF 2.8 is the inability to use it with the current RF extenders. By far, one of the greatest benefits of the EF white lens line.

[@cameralabs]

Thanks! And yes, it is frustrating how little will work with the TCs in the Rf series

[@vipersrt30]

what makes the f2.8 the better lens isn't necessarily the narrower depth of field in f2.8 but its the extra stop of light that allows for increasing the shutter speed or reducing ISO which will result in greater IQ in the more challenging situations.

[@johnhaynes9910]

Another excellent review and if I ever decide to put up the cash for an R body, good to know that my favourite EF 70-200 f4 IS L can still come with me :)

[@patrickfitzgerald2861]

FYI, the Canon EF/R adapter works perfectly.

[@Smoothblue90]

Fantastic video. I want an RF 70-200mm f/4L.

[@maxwellwellmax878]

Thanks Gordon! ill get the Ef 70-200 :)

[@timothylinn]

As always, Gordon, your review sets the standard by which all others can be judged!

[@cameralabs]

Thanks!

[@kjltube]

I can see this took a lot of work Gordon, but as ever your analysis is well considered, and complete. I'm sure Canon shooters will appreciate this. Thank you.

[@cameralabs]

Cheers!

[@GrandHuevotes]

Great observations about focal breathing. it seems the EF versions are superior for portraits due to higher magnification and softer rendering for background details.

[@cameralabs]

The rendering is very personal, but I also like the style of the EF, although the bite of the RF is also nice!

[@bahergha]

Without doubt, It is really an amazing lens, but the difference in quality from the EF version just can't justify the difference in the price, at least for me. Excellent review Gordon as usual.

[@cameralabs]

You're very welcome! Yes in terms of quality, not much in it. It's more about size and focusing.

[@richardbarclay9095]

Great review :)

[@cameralabs]

Thanks!

[@yanpermana8685]

Is the smoother background blur of the EF lens because of the less sharp around the mid-to-edge vs the RF version?

[@stargator4945]

@Gordon Laing does the firmware update 1.6 for the R5 or RF70-200mm F4 L IS USM Firmware Update, Version 1.1.0 change anything for the stabilizing issue in filming at 200mm?

[@cLickphotographySEA]

Well thought out reviews !

[@cameralabs]

Thanks!

[@maksimzaitsau2850]

Great review!

[@cameralabs]

Thanks!

[@improbablehandle]

Unlike the RF f/2.8 L, the RF f/4 L has the zoom ring placed correctly next to the lens mount. Thanks for the vid.

[@aaronporterjr.9515]

Great video. I was almost sold in the 200 EF F/4 one, but that F/2.8 is making this difficult!!

[@fakkerdakker]

Fantastic review! TYVM!

[@cameralabs]

You're very welcome!

[@fakkerdakker]

@@cameralabs I have recently added the R6 to my collection. I have the 24-105mm f4 L lens to go with it. Very happy with the combination. I also use a Tamron 24-70 2.8f G2 lens with an adapter...now that's a heavy lens. When I go telephoto, I'll will probably get the 70-200 f4. I can't justify the $1200 price difference between the 2.8f and 4f when there is such subtle differences, which you have shown. TYVM!

[@dominey]

Great review Gordon. This must have required a lot of work and editing. To my eyes, there's little difference between the EF/RF f/4 lenses, which is great b/c the EF has always been a solid performer. The RF f/2.8 might be worth the extra ~1k for portrait shooters who need maximum DoF, but for someone like me who shoots mostly landscapes, it wouldn't matter much. Overall, I'm most looking forward to the compact size of the RF f/4 for it will take up far less room in a backpack. Can pack an extra lens!

[@cameralabs]

Thanks, and yes it took AGES to edit!

[@murph6547]

good job gordon..keep good work

[@cameralabs]

Thanks!

[@weizenobstmusli8232]

Wow, Canon really leading the pack with highend zoom lenses.

[@Will_B_Photos_MTL]

Thanks for the review Gordon! I've had my eye on this lens since it was announced in the fall, but was delayed. I've tried looking for some videos but all I was able to find was either a official Canon previews or some someone whos an ambassador for Canon. Your video was just what I was waiting for! I think this will pair nicely with my RF 800 f/11 when out in the field. Thanks again Gordon!

[@cameralabs]

You're very welcome!

[@marktomaras4613]

Thank you for the detailed review. I am trying to make a decision between the RF f/4 and RF f/2.8 I am leaning towards the 2.8. Did you happen to notice a softness in the corners at the closest focusing distance on the RF f/4 lens compared to the RF 2.8 version? Another reviewer did see this, and it was not insignificant! I noticed on your tests with the buildings on the beach at infinity, there was not a significant difference in quality in corner sharpness. But as a main use for this lens for me will be product in the studio, I am concerned about corner sharpness. The RF F4 lens, even when stopped down, was noticeably softer than the RF 2.8 on the test that I saw online. I’m just looking for someone to corroborate that! If anyone had the same results, that would pretty much end my deliberations! Thank you very much :-)

[@falxonPSN]

In terms of magnification and bokeh, I think the EF is nicer. Clearly, the autofocus is dramatically better on the RF lenses.

[@andymiles5156]

Great review Gordon, yet again a lot of hard work obviously went into that.

[@cameralabs]

Thanks Andy, there sure was!

[@anderm1598]

great video! thank you:)

[@amitchattopadhyay9367]

Excellent review Gordon as usual. Hope the issue with the firmware gets attention of Canon - was it preproduction version?

[@cameralabs]

It was final, but I'm looking into it

[@ronangsr]

I just traded in the ef 2.8 ii for the rf f4, I found at least on the r3, the focus and tracking was very much hit or miss with the ef 2.8 ii, they looked fine but when zoomed in you could see the focus was off and details lost, this was even with 2000 of a shutter for testing purposes, the minute I put the rf f4 on tack sharp in all the same tests while tracking people,

[@wellwhatthen10101]

Looks like all of canons new RF lens are fantastic, it was good to see just how good the EF 70-200 was against them , and there wasn't a bigger gap than I would have thought .another good review would be to compare the old EF 70-300L lens would stack up against the RF lens as it is the same design as the new lens's external zoom, also it would go to show some way about dust ingres.

[@cameralabs]

I remember testing that 70-300L ages ago and was rather fond of it.

[@1967AJB]

Nice review, subscribed.

[@cameralabs]

Thanks!

[@1967AJB]

@@cameralabs Thank you, watched many more since then, great content.

[@hubertkuzmicki6219]

--- I'm considering purchasing the 70-200 f/4 lens. I shoot at events, sometimes in conference rooms where it is darker. Do you think it will perform well in such conditions? I can boost the ISO and use a flash. This would be my second lens, the first being the 24-70 f/2.8. I work with the Canon R6 II.

[@scotthunter4]

How does it compare to the 24-105 L at 79-105mm? I was underwhelmed by that lens compared to my RF 85 f2

[@tkermi]

I would really like Canon to make a big brother for the RF 100-500mm. By using the "same" design with 105mm filter / glass size they could make the following: 120-600mm f/4 - f/6,3 (actually f/6,15💡which they could for marketing purposes call f/5,6 when using 1/2 stop increments) f/4 120 - 186mm f/4,5 187 - 314mm f/5 315 - 449mm f/5,6 450 - 584mm f/6,3 585 - 600mm This would probably weigh about 2100-2250g (+tripod collar) so still not overly heavy for being really close focusing and brightest in its class. For me all of those focal length / aperture combinations would be very usable (to get nice DoF for varying situations). This lens should come with an option to buy it with a factory selected (individually fitted) 1,4x TC.

[@St8lker]

Anonther great Video, thanks. I own the F2.8 Version, but this also a nice lens. Greetings from Germany.

[@cameralabs]

Thanks! The RF 2.8 version is excellent!

[@kore996]

I’m trying to decide between the F4 & F2.8 RF 70-200. I’m on a Canon R6 and if I get the 70-200 F4 version I think I’d upgrade my EF 24-70 F4 to the RF 2.8 version which would help with both photo and video since I have a small house and my existing 24-70 basically lives on my camera….but then again I only own 1 other lens (EF 50 F1.8) 😂. I know the R6 does pretty good in higher ISO’s but I’m still struggling to make my decision. My only experience with a longer focal length is my older kit lens that zoomed to 135mm (216 full frame equivalent) and that was a years ago. I am going to be taking pictures of my toddler and family in environments such as forest trails, indoor recreation centres, arenas and some outdoor sports of my toddler as he grows up. There probably won’t be much difference between F4 & F2.8 in subject separation when I’m in more open type environments because the subject will be further away for sports or environmental portrait type photos. Do F2.8 lenses tend to hold their value better than F4 versions? Any input would be appreciated!

[@otameal]

Shockingly few comparisons available of the RF f/4 vs the EF 70-200 f/4L IS II out there, so thanks for including the EF version here. I'm having a hard time justifying the upgrade to the RF, as the EF version's IQ remains ludicrously good, though the compactness of the new lens is seductive.

[@cameralabs]

Thanks, I feel a proper side by side comparison is useful, but it takes a lot of effort, so you won't find many people doing them. I'm glad you appreciate it!

[@adityafajar309]

Thank You for reviews I think I choose a RF 70-200mm f4 for my EOS R5

[@product26]

"Coffee, buy me some coffee...here is me holding coffee." "I found it slightly unusual that I didn't come close to achieving the quoted degree of stabilization on the RF model" ONLY Kidding! Gordon, you do incredible work! much appreciated!

[@brianbeattyphotography]

Looks to me like the primary benefit of this lens is the small size. The weight savings would be nice, but it's pretty minimal compared to the EF version. If you don't need a control ring and aren't concerned about the EF length, it seems like the EF is the better choice and you can save a few hundred bucks. The IQ is great on both! Awesome comparison, really helpful to evaluate.

[@MusikPiratCH]

If you need the control ring you could buy an adapter with the control ring for your old EF lens. 🤔(Additionally you could use EF-Extenders for your EF 70-200 1.4x and 2x!)

[@deebea6364]

Great review! Very comprehensive - is the focus breathing similar with some other lenses? Noticed in a few other reviews some primes were looking less compressed, but the reviewer said it seemed like a wider lens, rather than because of breathing... ps. I may have missed it, but did you compare the RF 70-200 4, vs the 2.8, both at f4? is there any extra sharpness on the 2.8 stopped down? One good point you missed about having a good SD card is that if you’re using a CFExpress or other faster card then your camera is being held back by the SD, so a quicker SD will mean a longer buffer, and buffer clearing quicker when shooting redundant to both cards :) since getting the R5 I have been shooting Raw + Jog to both cards :)

[@cameralabs]

Yes, I showed the portrait comparison with the f2.8L at f2.8 and f4.

[@johnhf84]

Hi there! Relly great review. I'm a little bit lost trying to choose one. I can't afford de RF 2.8 of maybe I just dont wanna pay that crazy price. My question is... what would you go, EF 2.8 + adapter or RF f4? It's weird own the RP body and put EF lenses... but the price of RF 2.8 is just crazy... Thank you sooo much! 😊

[@leslofgren9981]

Great review, Gordon. Thank you. Is there a closer focus distance when focus breathing really starts to contract the range more toward the 50-150 mm you mentioned?

[@cameralabs]

It certainly gets more pronounced the closer you get to your subject. 1m or less was noticeable.

[@seattlelewis2]

I'd rather if most lenses were built with internal zooms. my 24-105. f4 sucked in so much dust over the course of 2 years it was crazy

[@randfee]

quite strange... I'm actually stunned about the background blur. Your bokeh comparison at 18:38. This looks like the 'effective aperture' of the RF F4.0 version is smaller than of the older EF F4.0, which seems to have almost the same bluriness or better: circle of obfuscation, than the RF 2.8.

[@cameralabs]

It's the focus breathing at work

[@randfee]

​@@cameralabs well that changes the effective focal length... but at the same focal length the circle of confusion should be determined by the aperture only. Did you not zoom out so that the scale of the image was the same for all lenses? Because if you have done that, one would see if the aperture was actually correct. Of course if you 'zoomed with your feet' in order to get the exact same framing on the subject, the ratio between object and background distance changed and therefore the bokeh is not comparable again... I suppose you did the latter then? ;-). It's fine, wasn't obvious to me as I would always test the background blur at the same effective focal length and thus same object and background distances... good work Gordon, don't let yourself get confused by me, ... I'm approaching my camera hobby too much with my job's accuracy...(laser physicist)... I wish the RF lenses weren't so expensive or I would upgrade for the size alone!

[@mikegbabcock]

This man is a treasure. Just think of all the free knowledge out there from such experts.

[@cameralabs]

Glad to be of service!

[@justinholding02]

Great review. What shutter mode were you using for the image stabilization test? I've noticed that I can hand hold for much sharper results when in ES or electronic first curtain modes.

[@cameralabs]

Thanks! I was using EFC.

[@steven871]

@ 11:45, the EF 4 at f/4 looks very similar to the RF 2.8 at f/2.8. @12:45 The EF f/4, at 200mm, has more pleasing oof background that the RF f/4. Could be the magnification effect. .

[@SteveP_2426]

I have the EF f/4 version plus control ring adapter for use on my EOS R and it's certainly something that takes up space in my camera bag. I'm really tempted by the compact size of the RF version and I've not read any reports of dust issues with the extending design but if I can keep my head ruling my heart looks like I might as well stick with the EF version for a while longer. Now if it worked with the new RF teleconverters it would have been even more tempting. My head says to wait for the 100-400mm RF non L lens or for Sigma/Tamron to come out with alternatives and make the best of the EF lens for a while yet.

[@cameralabs]

not a bad plan!

[@JohnDrummondPhoto]

I noted that during the zoom demonstration, you initially reached for the RF 2.8L's focal ring instead of the zoom ring. An understandable error, given Canon's usual ring placement. Why did they reverse the zoom and focal rings on the RF 70-200 F/2.8L? Is there an engineering advantage that doesn't exist on their other zooms? I have the RF 24-105 F4L and its rings are in the usual sequence.

[@cameralabs]

Ha ha, nice spot! I was going to edit that out, but left it in! It is a bit annoying to have them swapped round

[@jonathanoh4995]

I'm really interested in the F4 RF lens but after seeing your stabilization clip with the video stabilization vs the EF F4, I'm starting to get second thoughts.. May I ask what stabilization mode you used for the RF F4? Does changing it to a different mode help stabilize the lens in video any better?

[@cameralabs]

I only tested in mode 1, and there could have been an issue with my sample. I wouldn't worry too much about it.

[@proriyami]

Thank you so much dear Gordon for your excellent reviews, I do always listen to your advice. mainly I’m a landscape photographer. planning to switch to a mirrorless system. would you recommend RF 70-200 f/4 over the RF 70-200 f/2.8 for landscape photography? thanks

[@cameralabs]

Save money and weight and go for the f4 for landscape work.