CANON RF 70-200 f4 REVIEW vs CANON RF 70-200 f2.8

FROPACK3 is HERE with 15 all-new custom Lightroom presets!!! Check it out
froknowsphoto.com/fropack3/ (40% OFF)
This is a Lens REVIEW of the Canon RF 70-200 f4 IS, against Canon's RF 70-200 f2.8. I took both of these out to photograph Ice Hockey which is one of the hardest things in my opinion to shoot. If a lens can handle ice hockey, it can handle anything. The question is, should you go with the f4 or the 2.8?
DOWNLOAD Sample RAW DNG Files from both of these lens froknowsphoto.com/70200f4rf/
The Super Huger Mega Camera Giveaway is BACK!!! You could walk away with $4,999 to buy Cameras and Lenses. Enter Here bit.ly/megafro2021
This video was filmed with the Canon EOS R5 Canon.us/r5fro
Download MyGearVault, it's FREE and the best way to keep track of all your camera gear, receipts, prices paid, date purchased and more mygearvault.com/#download
Get a FREE Guide To Capturing Motion In Low Light Situations froknowsphoto.com/ (look for the orange box)
Want to send us gifts, swag, letters...here's our P.O. BOX
PO Box 3715 Philadelphia, PA 19125
USE CODE FroKnowsPhoto at squarespace.com/froknowsphoto to get your 14 day FREE Trial.
Gear I USE
I SHOOT RAW T-Shirts store.froknowsphoto.com/
I support Allen's Camera a mom-and-pop Camera store that's been around since 1977. allenscamera.com/fro
My Go To Mirrorless Camera for Stills
Sony a1 amzn.to/2NHsm55 or bit.ly/3ccKZrt
SIGMA 35mm f1.2 amzn.to/2rLO8Jr (FAVE LENS)
Our go to Cameras for Recording Videos at FroKnowsPhoto
Canon EOS R5 amzn.to/37GQQ5R or bit.ly/2Obaj40
Canon EOS R6 amzn.to/3m6JHQ9 or bit.ly/38GIdXt
The Microphone I use for Vlogging bit.ly/2LWGRPq
My Rolling Bag Of Choice For Flying bit.ly/2LNsHRK
Follow me
►KZbin: bit.ly/frotube
►Facebook: / froknowsphoto
►Instagram: / jaredpolin
►Twitter: / froknowsphoto
Please help us continue to make FREE content
by purchasing one or all of the FroKnowsPhoto
Educational guides. To check out previews of
each guide click here.
►froknowsphoto.com/guides
#FroKnowsPhoto #JaredPolin #Canon

[@GiacomoZonco]

omg i have been looking for this kind of review for 2 weeks now Thank you JARED!

[@uvp5000]

Thank you for posting this comparison. The images captured demonstrate how well the f4 and the f2.8 handle demanding situations with the R5. Very informative.

[@yveslubanda6698]

Fantastic review as always! Nice one Fro! 👏

[@andrewhulette2436]

I have been back and forth with which one to buy for weeks, thank you for this video!!

[@_JasonV]

Thanks Jared, Been waiting for this!

[@reginaldoppenheimer334]

Great comparison mang. Love your videos and content !

[@edspencer8113]

This could not have been more timely; I searched for this comparison last Sunday but got distracted and then it pops up this week. Perfect!

[@virenp1983]

Gordon Laing has a pretty DARN GOOD comparison covering possibly ticking more boxes than Jared's review but you're right. If you have any camera related queries you search on yt for Jared's vid he's got a reputation for that over a decade!

[@TheArtofKAS]

👀 Right right right right

[@counterfit5]

I didn’t even know the f4 version existed until last week

[@DSwizzy]

I love your videos man! Keep up the great work brother.

[@MrHotdogso7]

I actually got the f4 here JUST for the size. It’s just so small and great for adventure photography.

[@tommccarey6297]

Great review. It confirmed my belief the f/4 is the way to go, especially for landscape photography.

[@dougnelson423]

Another informative video Jared. Thanks

[@MiKeTuScAnI]

Just ordered the RF70200 F4!!!! Great review!!

[@janamerten6592]

I've got an R5 & 2.8 in my cart right now. You just convinced me to officially pull the trigger and finalize checkout. Thanks Fro!! 🤗💓

[@nathan-serny]

Do you still have r5 and 2.8 ? Is it good ?

[@icogicog8287]

Nice. Thanks. Landscape travel F4 for sure lighter, optically excellent and more compact. Ideal when you’re shlepping your equipment around!

[@PramodRamnath]

Great video. Just bought your Fropack bundle! Can't wait to do some quick editing !

[@froknowsphoto]

Thanks!!!

[@silvercruze2191]

Nice review 👍🏼

[@obsidian00]

Canon has simply KILLED IT with their RF glass lineup…very nice!

[@TMTM_81]

Yes, they killed my wallet

[@obsidian00]

@@TMTM_81 HA! I haven’t made the jump to the RF system as of yet (my 1DX3 is oh so freaking yummy!) but IF I do…it would take something like the R1 (Hopefully) to ditch the EF line!

[@Davitor1]

I traded all my EF glass which was painful specially when you realize you only get half the original cost, but eventually I believe DSLR will be discontinued, then you won’t get diddly for trade ins.

[@obsidian00]

@@Davitor1 I know the pain of getting SHAFTED whenever you trade in glass, that’s why when I DO switch up to the RF system, I’ll just use the adapter…the only EF lens that I WILL buy is the 28-70MM F/2!!! I ache for that lens! 😩

[@Davitor1]

@@obsidian00 I rather go for the RF100-500. It’s $300 less. I own the R5 with the holy trinity and the cheap rf35mm

[@zechariahgaskins1386]

I love it how Jared says things that so many people are afraid to say- noise and grain is part of the game! People need to stop thinking photos are ruined because there's noise and grain!

[@FabFemmeTV]

This is very helpful. Thank you Jared!

[@NOOBIFIER1337]

Spent the weekend shooting the f4 this weekend. Outside and in the wilderness. Fantastic and so light. Perfect for mounted to a Ronin

[@SkyViewPhotographyOfTheTriad]

Ready for that FroPack 4

[@ivanvelazquez3549]

This video was actually really helpful. I'm a cinematographer and for that I use my Canon C70 which I converted to PL Mount for Cine Lenses, but I also own an R6 as kind of my own personal photography and travel camera... and was pondering about the f/4 vs the f/2.8 and now that I've seen this video... I think I'm sold on the f/4 because of it's compact size. We don't have proper camera stores in Puerto Rico so these lenses are impossible to see/test before hand. (We have Best Buys but their inventory is pretty much non-existent). Thanks anyway.

[@pericardiocentecis]

For the size and the weight, I'd get the f4 as I'd be more likely to take it for landscape hikes and the like. Have an EF 2.8 which is gorgeous but sits at home mostly.

[@breakingrain9660]

Been waiting for this video

[@frederickmcdonald6636]

Factual and funny - loved this video! Makes the decision easier....

[@kiliandietrich8526]

I was waiting for this comparison. Too bad there were no direct bokeh comparisons and I had also hoped for more diverse sceneries... because I personally think that you can get stunning results with the F4! With the new sensors and the new lenses I think F4 is the new F2.8 tbh. You can pretty much do everything with it, even to the degree that you make your money with photos off the F4 lens lineup, they're simply that good.

[@VolleyballLyfe]

But is the F4 as good for indoor sports as the 2.8?

[@RideTheTrack]

I have the rf 70-200 f4, I love how damn small and light it is and the quality is awesome!

[@lnz971]

i prefer the 2.8

[@hungrydavo]

@@lnz971 I prefer KFC

[@MiKeTuScAnI]

With what R are you using it?? I thinking on getting the F4 to set it up with a R6

[@SJoZig]

I have the EF f2.8 and I love it but I just bought the RF f4 and I’m not disappointed it is awesome small light and cheaper and the results are fantastic!

[@magiccarpetrider4594]

@@lnz971 of course, and I have one, but for street, it’s like a battle axe in my bag.

[@mariocristobalcolladoavile448]

They look great, the only thing I don't like about them is the fact they extend and dust can get into it, unlike the versions for the mirror ones

[@rlfisher]

I couldn't be happier with the RF 70-200mm f/4. It has the beautiful RF glass and is crazy small and light to tote around for landscape photography.

[@sarahkeller6403]

What is your main camera you are using the f/4 with? Jumping back and forward if I should get the f/2.8 or f/4.

[@rlfisher]

@@sarahkeller6403 canon RP. Not a bad little camera

[@sarahkeller6403]

@@rlfisher Got the same one, love the RP! You can recommend taking the f/4 for the RP?

[@rlfisher]

@@sarahkeller6403 Yes all of my lenses are f/4 for landscape photography. If you shoot a lot of sports, stars, etc then you might want the faster ones. I rent them occasionally.

[@sarahkeller6403]

@@rlfisher Sounds great! That's why I'm also thinking about the f/2.8 because I also shoot some sports events. Thanks for your advice! :)

[@user-bn6hc3ei3u]

Haha awesome- very informative and entertaining at the same time. Thanks for the posting!

[@that74s]

Great review

[@RomelosLife]

Thanks for the two lens examples delivered and smashed it defo think the F4 is the one for me over the F2.8

[@Chemy.]

It's just an option, nice video man

[@MrColorao69]

Love your T-shirt! I have the exact same one!

[@michaelhornyak7506]

Hey Jerod, I enjoy watching your vids, your so honest and tell it like it is, I come from film and black n white darkroom experience. When I was in high school I got involved with the Newspaper. Did most of the darkroom responsibilities that was fun. Im retired now camera shopping waiting to see what Canon is going to produce. I have looked at the R5 and R6. I mostly interested in wildlife and macro photography. Love your photos.

[@DNdavidsonsnation]

The fro is looking hella good today Jared 👍

[@holamiju]

Thank you Jared

[@almath2115]

Hey Jared, as usual thanks for this comparison. Can't wait to see your review on the upcoming Rf 14-35 f4. Also have you heard anything updates on Sigma or Tamron with their Rf mount releases(?). Thanks Fro.

[@froknowsphoto]

not yet.

[@Thomasjcolbert82]

I also have the 2.8 and love it.

[@darkerarts]

I bought a 70-200 IS f/2.8 mkiii recently of someone who was buying the RF F4 version. His reason was, he is into hiking and wanted the lightest lens possible and with the iso abilities of the R range, there is no need for the 2.8. Me personally, I shoot events and concerts, f2.8 isn't essential, but it earns you money.

[@andyv6127]

F4 for me. Bought the 85 F2 macro as well with change. Now waiting for 14-35 F4

[@Axonteer]

Thanks Jared! I own that exact EF version (bought it used). The Adapter doesnt make a huge difference on my R6 as its already a long lense but the weigt difference.... Im just a hobbyist (enthusiastic tho) and you gave me some interesting insight into the thought process about getting an F4 or F2.8 .

[@mcmchan1]

What did you ended up getting? Im worried about the f4 in Low light but idk weight does matter since my 50mm 1.2 is heavy

[@adjake1]

I just bought the f4 2 weeks ago to replace my sigma 2.8 sports. This is my first L glass and my first rf lens. The size and weight and image quality are amazing. Even more amazing is the stabilization. I was able to get a 1.5 second exposure completely in focus. This is huge because i shoot a lot of waterfalls and this means i could actually hike without a tripod if i really wanted to (probably won’t but just saying) While i loved the image quality of the sigma, the heft of that lens did it in. I do a lot of hiking with my gear and i found myself often not even bringing that lens with me. I can hold that all day long and shoot but I definitely get a bit more shakey with it. Like you said this is a fantastic lens for the amateur. If i was a pro getting paid I would most definitely go for the 2.8 just for the flexibility.

[@counterfit5]

Wow, you beat my longest handheld exposure time by 50%

[@andredo4880]

How do you compare autofocus in sigma vs canon? I want to buy 70-200 for landscape photography but also for sport photos. In my country the price od both are the same, but i know Sigma weights 3 times more than canon

[@MatthiasAI]

have u ever tried a monopod? Especially if you are primarily hiking there are monopods with detachable tops that can double as a hiking stick/pole. I never thought of this until my friend introduced me to it, now whenever i think Im hiking and want to take some gear ill take my monopod and detach the head and foot. Also great for making noise hitting stuff while your walking incase u need to keep forest animals away or aware that your in the area.

[@mjztx]

I'm happy using my converted Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 VC G2. I'm hard pressed to give that up for the price difference right now. Both look like nice lenses though.

[@glenntracey4127]

Great review Jared, you have such energy and sound down to earth advice. I have a quick question you may be able to help me with. You mentioned about you dont need manual focus on these camera's which I agree but I had a scenario recently where I took my Canon R5 with RF 24-70 F2.8 lens to the zoo and in a few shots it had trouble finding the "animal" and would lock onto some fauna or the like. I never had the animal detect activated but I was thinking would I be better off shooting with single point focus in this situation ? What / how would you set up your camera in that environment ? Thanks in advance.

[@mikek7815]

I shoot a lot of youth hockey. I used R6. Im always at iso5000. Most rink lights blow. The eye tracking is on point. I always get beautiful shots. I shoot with sigma 120-300 2.8

[@MarkPMus]

I’d save even more money and adapt a Sigma or Tamron 70-200 f2.8 EF fit onto a Canon mirrorless. I’m so glad for that EF-RF adapter, because I’ve saved all my old lenses and they work flawlessly with my EOS-R. The RF glass may be good but it’s useless if most of us can’t afford to buy it. $1500 is an insane amount of money to spend, especially when you can get better glass on an older system more cheaply.

[@mjpt57]

Just bought the 70-200 f4. Amazing lens. Currently in the US on holiday. Saw it in a local camera shop. Saved about $300 AUD on it. Am looking forward to shooting around the Long Island, NY area with it.

[@howdidthisgethere119]

Great review. Thanks. I'm sticking with the EF 70-200 2.8 II for my RP with the conversion ring for a while. The RF glass is beautiful, but too rich for my blood at the moment. the compact size is tempting though for someone who has to fit a lot of gear together for travel.

[@protow5178]

Easy choice, F4. Use it, indoors outdoors what ever (I have an R5...). If business picks up, sell it for ohhh $1,300 and put that on the F2.8. Downside is I do like the placement of the zoom ring on the F4 version vs The F2.8 and will have to unlearn that when the time comes.

[@JohnDrummondPhoto]

Nothing here surprises me, except how tiny the F/4 is. I have the EF 70-200 F/4 Mark II, a really great lens that I've used many times for landscape and occasionally wildlife. The RF F/4 looks like it's half the size of even the EF F/4, NM the F/2.8s in either mount. A trade-in may be in order as weight savings is a consideration for me.

[@donbethel7675]

Awesome video. I think a comparison of the RF 15-35 f2.8 vs the RF 14-35 f4 would complete my training as young JAREDI. As I'm a recent owner of a EOS R with the RF 24-105 f4 usm, Im looking at the options of the F4 trinity. Any info on the subjects is helpful, Mahalo from Maui

[@LuigiVN]

Manual focus is great for food and macro photography where you most likely want the focus plane and DoF in a specific part. Sometimes the camera does a very good job at those applications with AF but with manual (and the DoF highlight funcion of the R, RP, R5 and R6) you can get your DOF just like you want it super easily and satisfactory using manual AF. It has NEVER been better to use manual AF with the MF assist modes of modern cameras ❤️

[@AaronVWard]

Sniff test did it for me. Just bought one.

[@justallmedia]

just ordered the RF f2.8 and the fact you did this review with hockey has made me more excited for it to come in! Im a goalie playing in rec league and i just love shooting hockey photos.

[@williamgoss4691]

Great compo between these two lens. As you’ve shown they are both great lens; and those images u got: absolutely fantastic, both in composition and clarity - focus - of the main subject. (Actually I thought they were all brilliant and all deserved to be published, but the B/w team meeting shot was just sublime !! ). And all this decided for me that I must, will, own the the R6 or R5 before too long, and some RF glass, althu the prices make me gulp even more, but as they say, glass is forever. (Bye the bye I have Sub’d; if for no other reason than to see some more of your images.)

[@tomaszdeska820]

Thanks for this comaprison :)

[@kenjanson3428]

I'm that amateur photographer that Jared talked about. I shoot Landscapes and travel and most of my work is on a tripod so f4 is fine for me. I now have the f4 holy trilogy 14-35mm, 24-105mm and this the 70-200mm. Great lenses and fantastic value for a part timer.

[@pauledwards5607]

I was thinking of getting that exact same trilogy...but let me ask you one question...if you WERE going to have f 2.8 in ONE lens ONLY...which one would it be?

[@slampest]

@@pauledwards5607 wide angle for me. Problem is, i also intend to do some astrophotography. For wide angle, i can get great pictures of milky way, dim lit landscapes and mountains. RF telephoto lenses are barely out, but with high aperture you can get amazing photos of things like the andromeda galaxy, sports, and dimlit places for animals. Its tough. Less zoom, more aperture or more aperture and less zoom. Getting both is more expensive. Im thinking of the rf 100-400, or this rf 70-200 for telephoto. For wide angle, its currently either sigma 14-24 f/2.8, rf 15-35 f/42.8 or the cheaper 14-35 f/4

[@AS-oz6ep]

Personally I went with the 100-500 for more reach. You are giving up a bit of light (f/5 at 200mm) and it’s more expensive than the f/4, and it’s more hefty but I find for what I’m shooting, 200mm just isn’t enough reach to fill the frame and I’m always wanting more.

[@MatthiasAI]

I still rock my EF 70-200 but im finally moving over to the RF system and the first lens i was thinking of grabbing is the RF100-500. Iv always wanted to get the sigma 150-600 or canon EF 100-400 but could never justify it. Now that i havent spent money on camera gear in a few years i dont mind splurging and the rf100-500 seems like itll get me there better then the Sigma which is old glass at this point will. Also the benefit of it all running natively and being lighter is a bonus. Cant wait to join the 100-500 club! Altho ill probably buy a RF70-200 f4 eventually.

[@francistheriault5622]

Just tried the new RF 70-200mm for ice hockey and ringette. Incredible even at low light... Better than my EF 70-200mm I IS for sure. And very light... Wasn't sure about interior ice hockey arena but it's great. I am sure the 2.8 is better but honestly the F4 is perfect for what I do...

[@johnadams3038]

Every lens manufacturer has a special bacterial and bio-hazardous cleaning facilities for cleaning lenses after they receive back units from Jared reviews.

[@mjztx]

Haha :)

[@rebootnut]

I’d imagine they could resell it “as is”. It would be like getting Leonard Nimoy’s used napkin.

[@IanJames56]

😂

[@Aneliuse]

@@rebootnutwho?

[@kingdreyer3033]

@@Aneliuseit’s from big bang theory

[@garyhook6583]

Great discussion Jared. I both loved the breakdown, and given that I spend way too much time in hockey rinks taking action shots with my 5D Mkiv, the examples struck a chord. Still waffling on whether to jump over to mirrorless. Avid enthusiast with a second mortgage tied up in all my glass :-), so will I get that much out of the new technology? Aargh. I love the idea of the weight savings with the F4 to say nothing about the price point difference, but being able to isolate a goalie or a player with the reduced depth of field with the 2.8, to me is the deciding factor. So that combined with the 'blow test' makes the F2.8 one, price be damned :-) Thanks again

[@marknorris3769]

rf 70-200 2.8 nice portrait lens

[@RealRaynedance]

Considering the whole price thing, can you imagine what would happen if Tamron managed to get their 70-180 onto the RF mount?

[@AmaxterPlays]

Sony’s lead with E mount and embrace of third parties is a major advantage and reason I went for an Alpha instead of the fantastic R6. RF is great and Canon makes great lenses but they need more affordable glass from Sigma and Tamron!

[@RealRaynedance]

@@AmaxterPlays And that's what's made me stick with Sony so far, too.

[@PersonaN007Grata]

I bought a Tamron SP 35 1.4 for $700 and it’s on par with the $1800 Canon. If Tamron makes an RF 70-200 I’ll be super interested.

[@1992tlp]

RE: which one would I choose? The F4: 1) As an amateur photographer I am typically stopping done from the max. aperture for better resolution for landscapes rather than shooting wide open to isolate a portrait subject; 2) the more I travel, hike and age, the more important saving that extra 0.9 lbs. becomes; and 3) with Canon’s astronomical lens pricing I need to save some $$ somewhere.

[@arisaperstein6947]

Great video. I am looking to buy a new lens for Nikon DX. Should I get a 24-70 f/2.8 if I plan on switching to full frame? If not what lens would you recommend for a casual walk around lens.

[@colinstock325]

I’m primarily an amateur landscape photographer with a Canon 5Div. I opted for the EF 70-200 f/4.

[@badboyvr4]

Since your shoot with a DSLR, you didn't have much choice but to buy an EF lens. This video is about the RF lenses, not sure what point you're trying to make.

[@luismanuelmendoza789]

10:17 you did dirty to that poor defense 😂

[@Manihsi]

Your killing us with lot of advertisements , unbelievable!

[@kathyj1444]

Love your videos! I am a hip grandma Now taking pictures of grandkids sports… Football ( i take pics for team Not selling yet tho ) and Volleyball and Skateboarding….I have the Canon RP… will the 70-200 either 2.8 or 4 Will they work well with that camera as well? I did read that these 2 lenses seem to be good for action sports… DO YOU OFFER CLASSES?

[@thomasheiliger9998]

It would be great if you can make a video about the cameras that the profs are using in the Olympic

[@Tainted-Soul]

Thanks Jared I think if the F4 was out when i got the R5 I may have gone for that but as I pre-ordered the RF70-200 F2.8 with the R5 I cant see the point to down grade only in weight and size but after getting the RF100-500 I have found I dont even look at the 70-200 , may be in low light is all

[@MrJeffinLodi]

I use manual focus, exclusively when shooting independent film; you need it for rack focus, etc.

[@alek.witha.k]

I would love to see you take pictures of gymnastics with the R5 or R6. I think that gymnastics is the hardest sport to take pictures of, because it’s always indoors in poor lighting, but the subject is also very hard to track because of all the flipping and twisting.

[@Pmeyer1226]

Try shooting short track speedskating. Worse lighting, ice, and ridiculous speed, what a combination.

[@thesharpercoder]

Hey, you got a shout out today from ZF. “Thanks, for the 600mm loaner. “

[@daveseeley8689]

What I'd really like to hear from you is if you think either one is enough better than the EF internal focusing vii. I love mine, and it takes both the EF teleconverters as well. For me, the compactness of the f4 rf lens is appealing for travel... so I might do that one, in addition the the adapted EF version I already own.

[@MatthiasAI]

I was also thinking of getting a rf 70-200 because I got a first gen 70-200 without is and its just historical glass now. Also with the EF to RF adapter it feels so bulky compared to the RF 70-200 f4 i borrowed from a friend. Ill never get rid of my old EF glass but finally putting effort into rf glass would take so much bulk out of my bag at this point. Also iv been denied at a few events because of maximum camera length before, if i had the RF and locked it they wouldnt know any better and give me an OK. With the internal zoom EF 70-200 with EF to RF adapter as soon as tehy see that they dont even bother measuring.

[@hunterVworld]

Thanks for the video. However, May I confirm I can use all the preset at Light Room? Or how can I use it?

[@35259edgarboudaher]

The difference in noise would be pretty much matched if you have the R6. The rf 24-105mm is my run and gun workhorse.

[@upcomingvillain]

I’m just getting into this and shot my first formula race with only a 50mm prime. Think I’m gonna start with the f4 and if I can start getting gigs you can still sell it all day for 1200 and then upgrade!

[@jeraldking2903]

Jared, if you had to choose between RF 70-200 f4 to the EF 70-200 f2.8 which would you choose? Cost is a lot closer compared to RF 70-200 f2.8. Shooting on R6.

[@argenisperez]

Thanks for great Video Jared I am entushiathic photographer and just I made transition from DSLR to Entry Level mirrorless Full Frame R8 Just yesterday I was shooting on my Son Indoor soccer game with R8 and Sigma 24-70mm with low light conditions and I really struggled a lot with Focus and light . I realized that the lense is not the right one for Sport events :) and now looking for a better lens for this. Even that this video is from 2 years ago still relevant for me. I am considering Canon RF 70-200 f.4 and SIGMA EF 70-200 f2.8 which price point are similar. What is your recommendation?

[@granlex]

Hi Jared. Quick question. Your opinion on my next lens. I have an eosR and like to do nature. For my next lens I’m looking for either 70-200 f2.8 or better reach 100-500 variable and there is nothing else in between. Is the reach of one outweighs the aperture of the other. The price is close but I don’t know. Maybe you can do a comparison with cons and pros. Thanks

[@robertjsissonful]

Great video as always. I have an R5 w/24-105 rf lens. I was thinking about getting either the rf 2.8 70-200 or the rf 4.0 100-500. I do a lot of landscape work but love zoom lenses. Thoughts on the better lense for my use? Thanks.

[@peaceyoman123]

i have watched all of your videos when they came out and re-watch them when I change or update gear accordingly. I just sold my 24-105L for a 24-70 2.8 and was wondering what the dif would be for the zoom range from your information and my own exp with 4.0 lenses, I think the 70-200 f4 would be good if most of the work is outside or in good light. regardless thank you again for being one of the best if not the best at braking down gear and use cases.

[@aov_james]

Wishing if only if they've made these lens zoom internally. I'm down for 70200 f2.8. Do you happen to know average time when they release mark 2 or 3 lenses out on market?

[@chrissious]

Hi Jared, nice video and i really like the f4 version. With regard to the RF600/400/800 i've heard things like: "you dont want to pair it with an EOS R, but with an R5/6." I find that really confusing. Is it because the IBIS or what? I didnt find the answer yet to this question. What would you say? I have an EOS R and I like it for my needs and my overall frequence of photography, hearing things like that is a little bit disappointing. Greetings from Germany!!

[@mjpt57]

Downloaded some of the images to the iPad Pro and viewed in Lr. It’s noise reduction feature was able to remove some of the noise from the hi-ISO images that I looked at.

[@Tmanw8898]

I used a Tamron 70-200 G2 on a eos R to photograph hockey and it did fairly well. I'm currently upgrading the rest of my glass to RF lenses, and I'm leaning towards replacing the 70-200 last just because I like the speed and results I've gotten from it. If all goes to plan next month it will be my only adapted lens. That way I can just keep the adapter on that lens and keep things a little bit simple rather than a 50/50 mix of RF and EF lenses.

[@shanabaker768]

Hi Jared! I have followed you for a while. I love your comparisons. You have been so helpful! Ok. I have decided I will be buying the 2.8. I am so excited about it. It’s an investment that I am sure will pay for itself soon enough! Now my question which body??? I shoot headshots. My daughter is an actress. And I got into photography to learn to shoot her headshots. I have taken 5 of 7 classes at the local college to get a photography certificate. And I love my classes. But I don’t know which camera to get. So what is your suggestion for portrait photography? Thanks again for all of your videos! You are awesome!!!!

[@DavidLee-lr1em]

Picked my rf 70-200 f4 on day 1 because of size and weight also because it awesome sharp :)

[@SexyMistaMustard]

I bought the f4, it’s pretty incredible

[@GOAP68]

Love the internal zooms. Shooting dog action, less motion is better. Plus think internals are less vulnerable to shooting in dust weekend after weekend. I don't hike to my shooting spots, lighter means nothing.

[@mohammadnouritani]

Please one video for all rf lens canon please also compare 28-70 f2 vs 24-70 f2.8 and what to get

[@mitas3484]

I got the F2.8 based on your holy trinity review, so far I've not been at a shoot where I didn't have the tools I needed

[@aldrindetablan4358]

I watched for the niff test and the wind tunnel test.

[@DanCThorpe]

Be interesting to see if its worth getting the EF 70-200 2.8 over the RF F4. Can pick one of those up second hand for half the price of the f4.

[@robinrides2384]

are the fropacks ever not on sale? x) nice comparison video as usual :p

[@froknowsphoto]

Yes

[@christianrasmussen7965]

I’ll go with the 2.8

[@Needafollower]

Yo dude you Reviewing the new sigma 150-600 lens for canon e mountains time soon?

[@ColinRobertson_LLAP]

I own the fantastic EF 70-200 f/4 IS II, but using it adapted on my EOS R is getting old... I'm sorely tempted to replace my lens with the RF f/4, but realistically, I would upgrade to the RF f/2.8. It's still an upgrade in terms of size (5.75" vs 6.93" tall), and obviously an upgrade in terms of max aperture. It is heavier though (2.35 lbs vs. 1.72 lbs).