Canon RF 70-200mm f/4 'L' IS USM lens review

[@christopherfrost]

Two notes: 1) The image stabilization really does seem MUCH more effective in stills mode (don't ask me why). 2) I forgot to mention, the lens has a control ring at the front for changing aperture and other functions.

[@groundhoppingwlkp3622]

You also forgot to show huge rattle inside the lens (especially when it's decoupled from camera). Same story is in RF 70-200 2.8. Big no no to Canon for doing it

[@scothu]

Why is that a big no no?

[@groundhoppingwlkp3622]

@@scothu I have never seen it in other lenses with image stabilization. Ofc IS in that RF lens is great and probably they did it to compensate moves of lens, still it doesn't look sturdy at all, and I don't know if it will last in good shape with so huge rattle for years. All in all - RF 70-200 F4 is a great lens, image quality is simply stunning, sharpness, colors, even it's good to astrophotography. Also it's small , portable and made with great plastics. But that rattle is a big flaw

[@MinhTran-gc2lg]

Can you make a video about 28-300mm L f3.5-f5.6 EF canon ? To see it still wort in 2024 ?

[@SamA-kl6pi]

@@groundhoppingwlkp3622so, no reason except how you feel then?

[@teepatchong5668]

Amazing outdoor lens. So sharp. Eye-detect autofocus was accurate. I love it. Took photos of my wife 10 metres away and I could see the fluff on her jumper!. The eyes were so sharp. So impressed by this.

[@marcp.1752]

A fine Review, Chris! This latest RF Mount 70-200 F4 L USM is a full 700 EUR (!) being more expensive, than the older Canon EF 70-200mm 4.0 L IS II USM Lens, which costs only slighty >1000 EUR. So Canon really (always) pushed the Thumb Screws to the max here...one should consider this into Mind, before migrating to the EOS RF Mount System.

[@ggabovich]

Hey. As usual excellent video. Everything is detailed, neat and clear. I do not buy a lens before checking your review. Always a pleasure. Well done!

[@thedondeluxe6941]

Looks like it would be a fantastic pairing for the 24-105! Almost makes me wanna go for F4 zooms in stead of F2.8.

[@peterebel7899]

the 24-105 pairs great with the 100-500 as well. Man, too much great RF lenses!

[@michaelballinger6419]

Yup RF 70-200 F4 is my next purchase delighted with the size, weight and performance of this glass

[@MazdaMike0122]

This time around with RF that's what I did. Small lightweight f4 zooms for personal use and a couple fast primes for paid work.

[@kaileekroll6265]

This is probably the best lens review i've ever seen. SOO thorough. Thank you!!

[@chrisgil1658]

Thanks Christopher for another great review. This is a truly stunning lens, my copy arrived at the beginning of February and has virtually replaced the 24-105 as the lens that stays on the EOS R all the time as it is so compact. I'm getting great results and really happy with the lens. If there is a slight down side for me it would be that it seems slightly heavy on battery use but It could just be that I'm taking many more shots.

[@davidmpoliveira1]

I'm seriously considering purchasing this lens. I own a Tamron 70-200 f2.8 G2, that I use on my R6, but this RF 70-200 f/4 ends up weighting less than half, and its ergonomics seem really game-changing. This is the first time we have a 70-200 that can be handled like a standard zoom lens.

[@Axonteer]

Im contemplating about getting this while also owning the 70-200 2.8... solly because of the weight and size savings. the 2.8 is always just that bit too bulky and when hiking every gram counts and as you tend to say: the best lense is the one you have with you. Its now down to 1100 (incl cashback)... personally id still wish canon would release a follow up to the 70-300 4-5.6L I reaaaalllyyy love that lense, size - width behaviour sharpness all is just really good for the package... and the reason i havent sold mine yet. Granted the 100-500 is "technically" a better package for airshows and some wildlife but its also an RF and not EF... I think i can restrain myself from spending money on th 70-200 just for 300g in weight savings (give or take) and put my thoughts on the lack of an RF 70-300 4-5.6 :S - and i should whip the old 300 out some time with an adaptor on it.

[@mentosica29]

Clicked so fast! I've been waiting for this for so long. Thanks, Chris!

[@bburchellphotos]

If I'm gonna get this and the R6 & R5, I'm going to running desperately short of organs with which to part exchange to pay for them all...

[@shmadmanuts]

Nikon 70-200 F4 Z is famous - in being non-existent (the F mount version took years to replace the ancient 70-210 F/4 D)

[@gilleswalther5964]

FYI you can find organs on other people in case

[@norbertalleaume]

:D :D :D - u could kidnap someone :D :D :D

[@DeeperQuestionsYouTube]

I'm in the same boat, man. Seriously, I wish I could afford to buy this kind of equipment.

[@davidmanzi4491]

You only need one kidney, right? :-O

[@welshchap]

Watched the video as I might well buy this lens for my EOS R. What a surprise I had when your first image was of the place where I grew up (Finch Square, Cardigan). It made me smile :)

[@pedroprietolopez330]

I own the Rf 24-105 f:4 . I'd be waiting for the coming soon Rf 135mm f:1.8 better, for a radical change and improvement. Thanks for your review!!!

[@monroethechainbreaker8820]

just bought this lens waiting for it to arrive, can't wait

[@brianbeattyphotography]

ah man that collapsible body would be so nice for hiking and landscape photography... I do love the EF f/4 II but this design would be huge for saving space!

[@samremington4637]

It is! That’s exactly why I bought it and after 6-7 hikes with it so far I’m absolutely obsessed with it. It’s unbelievably sharp too. The landscape shots coming from this lens have been even better than I hoped for.

[@brianbeattyphotography]

@@samremington4637 I can only imagine!

[@GiacomoZonco]

I am seriously thinking of getting this instead of the f2.8 since I don’t shoot indoors a lot, and I can save money and weight As a travel photographer (when we can travel, that is), I feel like this, the 24-105 and maybe the upcoming 14-35 f4 can give me a do everything, portable kit Add one prime like the 35 1.8 Macro and you can do so much!

[@javieruribefotografia3917]

At last the review I've been waiting for the whole year! What a nice piece of equipment. I really want one for me

[@martingraf6974]

I really like your tests - and I enjoy listening to them. Such a nice dialect - so even Germans can understand it :) I'm now waiting for Nikon to do a compact Z 70-200 or 70-300 and you to test it.

[@airb1976]

Agree as a German

[@Tainted-Soul]

Thank you foe another great review I get my lenses on a lot of reviews but your takes about 80% of my choice , thank you once again I am so happy with the RF100-500

[@andrewdoeshair]

I came here to see people saying that pro lenses don’t extend while zooming, like there’s never been a pro 24-70 before.

[@markg6841]

There is now a PRO 24-105mm F2.8L IS Z that do not extend... haha...

[@NoRegret08]

I have an Canon EOS R with RF 24-105 F4L and RF 14-35 F4. I also bought 6 and 10 stop B&W ND filters and Manfrotto travel carbon tripod. I really want to get RF 70-200 F4 and it is on sale now. However, I want to keep it 2 lenses only for travel (Going to Iceland in December). I think I can buy RF 70-200 F4 and sell RF 24-105 F4L. However, RF 24-105 F4L is such a good lens! I find using using RF 14-35 much more often though because of the close focusing distance for selfies with the significant other. RF 24-105 F4 has a minimum 45cm focusing distance and my arms are not that long LOL. What a dilemma - or just forget about RF 70-200 F4 and stick with what I have.

[@scotthunter4]

I recommend the RF 24mm 1.8 Macro if you like taking selfies with a mirrorless camera. It’s a great lens. Pair it with the 70-200 f4 and you have an awesome pair of lenses for landscape photography with macro capabilities.

[@christheswiss390]

Great review, good details, to the point. Thank you!

[@livejames9374]

You’re gonna make us wait for the Noct review huh 🙂

[@christopherfrost]

Not for long :-)

[@ych8312]

@@christopherfrost please review the new nikon 50mm 1.2s and voigtlander apo-lanthar series

[@szelag]

This seems really tempting for a travel telephoto

[@dps6198]

My wife is a petite woman and the RP was a great buy since she has small hands. I am taking a chance on buying a pre-owned copy of this lens in the hopes she gets more use than the EF 24-135mm 3.5-5.6 IS USM lens she currently uses on the RP. What I worry about is lens creep. When the camera is pointing down will the lens extend on its own or is there a lock button like the EF 24-70 f/2.8 L II?

[@malmedia]

It might be cool to do a more direct side by side of old and new.

[@JSCreative1]

I have the EF 2.8 version. I love it but it’s dang heavy. Thought about picking up this lens but I’m worried about it only being and f4..

[@vinsensiusrivan3530]

F4 is just good enough for most of my shooting style.. i'm doing photojournalism, studio indoor, candid wedding.

[@jayanv2824]

Excellent Review. Thanks Christopher Frost.

[@alanpriest5047]

Does anyone have any experience of using this lens on the R7?

[@ekinshuya]

Can you please re-test the RF 28-70 F2 on the R5 instead?

[@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.

[@aviator201]

Aside from the extra stop of light, how does this compare with the RF 70-200 F2.8?

[@christopherfrost]

They're virtually the same (although the f/4 lens is smaller)

[@alphaandomega2709]

Will canon come out with the 1x2 RF converter?

[@goldenstasgs]

Cristopher why you mentioned that Canon made from plastic? It’s magnesium alloy but not plastic. Maybe you have to explore deeper Cabon technology. I faced with same mistake with headphones review of Meze Lyric. It also made from magnesium alloy, but very often it was confused with plastic.

[@amitchattopadhyay9367]

Excellent review Christopher. May request you to create a video on Nikon Z vis-a-vis Can RF lens based on what you have reviewed so far from both the manufacturers. Would be interesting to know which factors of lens design and manufacturing(pros and cons) appeal consumer and based on that consumers who are yet to pull the trigger on mirrorless can act accordingly (based on available lens choices and lens design philosophy). Thanks a ton for this excellent precise review 🙏

[@joaovtaveira]

0:37 there are also, a 70-200mm f/4 IS.

[@ZeLoShady]

Another fantastic video Christopher!! I would really like to see some tests with different lenses adapted onto different bodies. I am thinking of buying a Fuji xt4 and while their lenses are very good, there are better ones out there that could be adapted but it is hard to tell how IS, AF and focus would work on a different camera body.

[@paulbeckmann]

Brilliant review as always! Thanks!

[@scotthunter4]

Is this lens sharper than the 24-105 L between 70-105mm?

[@mralexlex]

RF 70-200 f4 or f2.8 lens hoods will stay at home for most users.

[@DanielFazzari]

Yep, I never use mine, just too big and obnoxious

[@diamondly6250]

3:33 was that hand held?

[@groundhoppingwlkp3622]

Yes it's possible to get sharp image on 1/4s on FF with that lens and IS on

[@sgnz2000]

Thanks for a very interesting review. I can't justify buying this lens or the 'accessory' of the camera I'd need to go with it. But I still enjoy these reviews and dreaming a little. At about 7min 35sec, I'm wondering if meant to say 'brightness' when saying 'much more corner sharpness' stopping down to f5.6-f8. Guess that with less auto-correction needed for brightening corners, there is some sharpness improvement.

[@TheLordCyberex]

Thank you for your work.

[@احمدشهاب-ك2ذ]

We will be pleased if you make a review of the tamron 70-180 F2.8 for sony E mount

[@pandeluckymahardika3354]

Me too cause i already had it

[@FightingPinguin]

That would be great!

[@ramsey3671]

Tamron better then sigma ??

[@احمدشهاب-ك2ذ]

These is no native sigma 70-200 for e mount yet

[@kore996]

Help Please. I have an R6 and would like to get a RF 70-200mm but not sure if I should get the F4 or the F2.8 version. I now have a toddler and he will be starting indoor activities soon like gymnastics or whatever else toddlers do at the age of 2 😂. I keep hearing how amazing this F4 version is and it would be nice to save some money towards other gear but having a hard time with the decision. I guess an F4 is an F4 at the end of the day and I tend to hold on to my stuff for a long time. This is also just for myself and family related photos and nothing professional but it’s something I enjoy now that I have a spinal injury and can no longer do physical activities myself. Appreciate anyones input on the matter.

[@11010j]

I had the same question when I had R6 and was looking for RF70-200mm. At the end, I purchased f4 during Black Friday sale last year. The image quality of f4 zoomed in and out will blow you away, I always end up 'unsharpening' several steps everytime I take portrait photos. I guess indoor gyms have good lighting condition so shouldn't be too much problem. A portrait taken in a dark cathedral with a dim lighting at f4 had some obvious noise (I think the ISO was at 12800) but the photo still looks pleasing for personal use. Hope this helps. I love the lens a lot.

[@papel_pe]

What do you think of pairing this pretty lens with a Canon R7...? I'm currently using a Efs 55-250 for some street and casual nature photography.

[@groundhoppingwlkp3622]

For street is quite good option, lens is pretty small retracted, but still white so you can bring some notice ;) All in all it's very good piece of optics, but quite fancy for street/casual work - better for event/sports photography

[@Gremlack13]

I’d like the 70-200 f4 to compliment my 24-105 f4. As an enthusiast, I don’t have a real need to spend a boat load more money for the 2.8. F4 mostly works just fine for me for a zoom lens.

[@ayayoutuber]

I have both version and the EF is heavier, the autofocus is noisy instead of silent. It focus slower and is way bigger and heavier. EF one might be tougher but I really hate the noise from the focus motor.

[@rmm9747]

Hello Christopher, excellent review. I own a Canon R7 and an RF 14-35 f/4 and a 24-105 f/4. I would like to upgrade my old Tamron 70-300 and am torn between the Canon 100-400 f/5.6-8 and the Canon 70-200 f/4. For wildlife I already have another telephoto lens. What do you think? Thank you very much in advance for your time.

[@WINDSHEAR-STUDIO]

Does anyone know if there is a significant difference using this lens over the RF 18-150 f3.5-6.3 STM lens for a R7?

[@vinsensiusrivan3530]

The sharpness, fix f4 aperture, greater build, nicer bokeh, snappy AF will welcome you with the 70200 F4

[@WINDSHEAR-STUDIO]

@@vinsensiusrivan3530thanks. I did get one and you’re correct on all counts!

[@vinsensiusrivan3530]

@@WINDSHEAR-STUDIO congrats! great choice, welcome to the club 😁

[@rarza87]

Christopher Frost please make a test Voigtlander Apo-Lanthar 65 mm f/2 Aspherical 1:2 Macro

[@patrick.991]

It's a bit off-topic ... but are you happy with your Fuji you bought a few months ago? You said you didn't like the colours of your X-T20, is that better now with the newer camera/sensor?

[@km.productions]

Excellent review!!!!

[@johndao5870]

Is this lens parfocal or near parfocal?

[@ericchouinard8075]

Excellent review. Thank you. Suggestion xf 70-300.

[@MzuMzu-nx1em]

Sorry to mention, but I like to call " expansive plastic " , carbon tiger or polymers, technically is possible to build working engines

[@thegrayyernaut]

Is there any chance you will ever test out the Fujifilm 50-140mm f/2.8? It's technically Fuji's 70-200mm f/4 xD As always, thank you so much, Christ, for making these top-notch and reliable reviews.

[@networm64]

I almost have no hope for that as we haven't seen any white telephoto lens from Sony here yet either, while we have seen alot of EF and RF white lenses here sofar. Even though these lovely RF lenses are way newer than Sony white tele lenses.

[@Mowikan]

I have that fuji lens. The quality is perfect. Top quality and weather sealed.

[@NeXMaX]

I have that lens. It's a very solid performer but I would really love to see an updated version with some improvements to its construction.

[@Bayonet1809]

If you must abbreviate his name then use Chris. Calling him Christ is a bit insensitive for Christians.

[@karlnixon5037]

Hi Chris, seen a couple of in-depth reviews suggesting 135mm is a weak spot for the lens, with a significant loss of edge sharpness below f/8. Did you test your copy at 135mm? Seems like it could be copy variation to me as it would be most unusual for a lens to perform brilliantly just a couple of mm either side of a serious weak spot.

[@Magnetron692]

Hi Chris, many thanks! Does the lens show much improvement with regards to the EF 4.0/7.0-200mm L IS USM Mk. I. I own a copy of that and I’m very happy. Best wishes Ralf

[@mohammadmoontasir7246]

WATCHING YOU FROM L;ST 3 YEAR..LEARNED A LOT FROM U..THANKS

[@KGi4]

Could you please do review of Canon RF 14-35mm f4 L IS USM so it will complete f4 lens trinity of RF lens line :) Thank you in advance Christopher ;)

[@JeanLucIchard]

Very nice review, the 70-200mm f4 seems like an awesome lens! ;))

[@peterebel7899]

The EF was/is a great evergreen. This is the appropriate RF successor.

[@neovo903]

I went for the F4 version because it's so small and I can sacrifice 1 stop of light for it being so light! (dabum tissssh)

[@rudyreimer302]

Thanks for this review!

[@viralinvlent7793]

Is it worth getting the F2.8 compared to this might save so much if I get this instead but want to make sure its the right choice and im not missing out on alot.

[@christopherfrost]

You'll be missing out on 1 stop of light. Unless you're a professional wedding photographer you should be fine

[@DonAle_97]

It is worth getting an EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM for a 7D Mark II?, I want to upgrade my old 24-105 f4, but I’m wondered how the f2.8 performs in my camera.

[@raksh9]

The 24-70 f2.8 beats the pants off the old 24-105 f4 EF. Much sharper, better corners, brighter f stop, everything except price. But that's what you're paying for. The 24-105 is not Canon's best, shall we say.

[@Hubieee]

Despite the obvious advantage, an extruding barrel with an L lens is something that I don‘t like. My 70-200 f/4 L IS USM is clunkier and the IS is a little bit on the louder side but still way enough sharp and well-sealed. Apart from the slightly clunkier look with an adapter, the EF lenses are by no means less utile on RF bodies. Rather the opposite. A 70-200 f/4 is more usable on an r6 than it ever was, with high ISO capabilities and IBIS.

[@Adventure_Together]

I hope that Sony take a look at what Canon are doing here and can cut some of the size and weight from their lenses. Great video as usual.

[@MzuMzu-nx1em]

Do you think with this lens can shoot professional and profitable bird pictures?

[@texmex9721]

This would be an excellent lens to photograph pet birds or stuffed birds that cannot fly away.

[@MzuMzu-nx1em]

@@texmex9721 nice one , but those poor animals killed for fun or vanity make me really really sad

[@groundhoppingwlkp3622]

@@MzuMzu-nx1em 200mm is too short for birding. Try RF 100-500

[@aditya_gupta]

That focusing speed was quite impressive.

[@shand1967]

I have the ef-s 18-135 with the same nano usm focusing motor and the focusing speeds never fails to impress me.

[@airb1976]

@@shand1967 its obvious that you dont know what you are talking. The EFS 18-135 mm has no nano USM, but just the cheap STM. Do you really own this lens?

[@vinsensiusrivan3530]

@@airb1976 gosh, check the marketplace, there is EFS 18-135 nano USM version. Doh !

[@Vikingdescendent]

This lens reminds me of the suburb and highly underrated compact FUJI XF 55 to 200mm OIS f 4.0 lens.

[@magiccarpetrider4594]

I had that Fuji lens. It’s underrated because it’s not amazing. The EF F4LIS was stellar, and the 2.8LII is even better. I sold the fuji fast.

[@e5141981]

Ill wait for the 24-105 f2. 8

[@ericmorales1934]

Imma buy it period !!!!

[@thegorn]

Canon are sneaky to not show the lens extended in their product photos

[@texmex9721]

This lens is down $300 in retail price and even more on the used market. I just bought a like new used one for $1100.

[@jianhuitian7359]

Great video. Thanks.

[@photographerjonathan]

I like how you say that Canon is down sizing all there new lenses. have you seen the 28/70 f2L or the 50 and 85 f1.2 L lenses lol. which are huge and heavy monsters and the primes are way bigger and heavier than there older DSLR versions. but it is nice that there 70/200 f2.8 and f4 were made small. now if Canon could have that small strategy with some new 35/50 and 85 f1.4 L primes. I might be willing to switch back to Canon.

[@groundhoppingwlkp3622]

Zooms are only smaller... in your bag. Fully extended they are about the same as predeceessors. Also I don't like that rubber on zoom ring is not one surface, there's a big riffle - after years of usage rubber can get off like in old Sigma lenses.

[@waynemakka4646]

expense is relative, best ever Canon zoom RF 70-200/4L plus a 14-35/4L plus a 50mm still LESS than the cost of 1 Leica SL Zoom, viewed in that light they appear well priced.

[@arnaudontrack499]

Is it worth with R7 ?

[@vinsensiusrivan3530]

absolutely !

[@four-kings]

Is this really 70-200？can you compare the zoom range？

[@airb1976]

It is 70-198 mm in reality

[@four-kings]

f2.8 and f4 which is sharper?

[@vinsensiusrivan3530]

F2.8 a little sharper, a little better bokeh even in the same aperture. But for the price and size/weight, the F4 is excellent !

[@four-kings]

@@vinsensiusrivan3530 Thanks a lot！

[@vivalasvegas702]

I wonder if Nikkor designers will step out of their comfort zone and design a truly compact(RF like) 70-200 f4 equivalent. I doubt it though, base on Z F2.8 trinity. The EF version was the 70-200 f4 industry benchmark.

[@livejames9374]

The Z 14-24 2.8 is tiny and light compared to its competitors. The 15-30 f4 and 24-70 f4 are also very small, I see no reason why they wouldn’t make a compact 70-200 f4. The 2.8 are minimal compromise lenses. Nikon made the right choice with the 70-200 2.8 with not having an external zoom and ended up with the best 70-200 on the market.

[@airb1976]

@@livejames9374 it.is not the best 70-200 on the market

[@Bayonet1809]

@@airb1976 What is optically better then?

[@airb1976]

@@Bayonet1809 the RF 70-200mm f2.8 is currently the best Lens for mirrorless cameras. It is light, small and has exceptional image quality. So what is Nikon offering? Heavy and unbalanced Long lenses with exceptional image quality. Which one is better?

[@livejames9374]

@@airb1976 the Nikon is better in every category but weight and size and can use teleconverters. If you value compactness over anything else the canon is the one for you, if not then Nikon is better. And the canon is only small in the backpack, go shoot at 200mm with the hood and it’s actually bigger, but don’t shoot a close subject at 200mm because you won’t get 200mm.

[@budthecyborg4575]

Not so great close up. These zoom lenses tend to have good magnification so it's frustrating when the lens designers drop the ball on close focus.

[@p_adam19]

Shortened version: it is yet another RF-mount L-series lens, therefore it comes Highly Recommended.

[@jillianangell2570]

If you can stomach the price!

[@vinsensiusrivan3530]

Not all L RF lenses got highly recommendation from Chris !

[@maorvaknin769]

Nikon please release the Z 70-200 F4 S VR

[@paulyeung6608]

I love this lens.

[@AugmentedGravity]

RF be the best.

[@mazurkiewiczp]

Hey Christopher, I love your reviews that is why I wanted to ask you how would you compare this lens to old EF 70-300 L adapted on R6? Is it worth to replace it with 70-200? I'm not using 300mm very often (however it's great to have it when needed) but still most of my pictures are shot between 70-200. I love how EF lens renders but size and weight of new RF are very tempting.

[@AhmadAbdelAzim]

I see a Chris review I click

[@2020davidg]

Christopher... you say this is the best 70-200 ƒ4... how does it rate against all 70-200s (i.e. including the 2.8s)? Love your reviews BTW.

[@MzuMzu-nx1em]

What about bird photography?

[@texmex9721]

It would take a pretty large bird to hold this lens.

[@MzuMzu-nx1em]

@@texmex9721 I am somekind of a friend with animals, don't know why but animals tend to get close to me . Sometimes even beautiful eagles

[@DeputyNordburg]

400mm is consider the normal lens for bird photography, so 200mm is pretty short. Canon's 100-400 RF or 100-500 RF would be better choices. But that's not to say yo couldn't use it. Shooting in an Aviary for example where the birds stay pretty close.

[@MzuMzu-nx1em]

@@DeputyNordburg without any income it's a luxury too expensive..

[@RichartAsia]

I'm running out of kidneys...

[@definitelyhexed]

The only person in the world who drinks Pepsi Crystal.

[@petercarpowitz7007]

I don't understand... It looks better than version 2.8 which is twice as expensive.

[@kifley19]

His 2.8 review was with the Canon R. This review was with the R5.

[@petercarpowitz7007]

@@kifley19 But in 2.8 test sharpness is getting better after increasing 'f', what means that sensor(R/R5) is not a problem.

[@kifley19]

@@petercarpowitz7007 sharpness always gets better as you stop down and usually gets worse at f11.

[@petercarpowitz7007]

@@kifley19 Of course, but it shows in case of 2.8 test, that limitation is not the resolution of the sensor (r/r5), but the sharpness of the lens.

[@kifley19]

@@petercarpowitz7007 the 2.8 lens is sharper than the f4 lens. I'm not understanding what you're trying to say.

[@samruddha362]

imma get the EF one nevermind 😞

[@adidasaddict]

£1700 for f/4 70-200mm, Canon, please put down the crack pipe

[@cardiacade]

Nice hellebores.

[@DavidWilliams-wj4sc]

If only I were a millionare...oh wait, I am... I was going to buy this, but was able to get a used, newest model, EF 70-200 f4 L IS USM mark II for $900. Why? the zoom is way smoother and shorter spin. This new RF model is geared down to move the entire front piece thus you have to spin the zoom around farther, and it's stiffer. Bad for video. Aside from the easier and faster to zoom, I like that it's all internal thus no dust. See 1:55 on this video as he mentions it as well. Plus mine is still light and metal vs plastic. If that wasn't enough, I still have an old SLR and an EOS M6 II, so my EF version can work with everything. And cheaper. And it was introduced only 2 or so years ago, thus still newer tech. There was no way I was going to blow $1600 on this for only a only 1 pro (size at 70mm) and several cons.

[@BenMarar]

Not happy with this lens. Strong astigmatism on right side of the frame. Absolutely terrible Canon

[@tomsquires2926]

$1600 for an F4 zoom is way too much even for Canon L.

[@jimmynordstromphotography]

Even worse, here in Sweden they want $2060 for it excluding VAT.

[@saintmovies7735]

Agreed. Way too much for an F4 lens. $1200 would be more in line

[@DanielFazzari]

@@saintmovies7735 1600 is a bit tough to swallow, but the EF version is 1300, so 1200 is not quite in-line.

[@666Tomato666]

@@DanielFazzari $1300 for the EF version is also outrageously expensive

[@fragu123]

IMO you definitely get what you pay for.... whether that’s affordable or not is a personal thing....