I want you to be better! Canon RF 70-200 2.8 L IS USM Z Review

Canon RF 70-200 2.8 L IS USM Z:
B&H (NA) - bhpho.to/4he0FZx
Adorama (NA) - bit.ly/4j9dgz9
--------------------------------------------------------
(*)Affiliate Links über die wir ein wenig Provision verdienen, wenn ihr darüber einkauft. Für euch entstehen dadurch keine Nachteile. Die Partner-Website erhebt beim durchschreiten des Links Daten von euch die in der Datenschutz-Vereinbarung der Partner-Website aufgeführt sind. Für uns ist am Ende nicht Sichtbar wer, wann, was gekauft hat.
--------------------------------------------------------
Chapters
00:00 - Intro

[@SamW604]

Thank you for your candid and honest assessment of these lenses. Generally, videos that I watch tend to focus mostly on the strengths of a product while down playing or ignoring the weaknesses. Your video is significantly more helpful.

[@TigaWould]

It's strange, you're the only one who has posted a video showing all of this information. I stumbled on your video randomly while browsing KZbin, and out of all the reviews for the 70-200 yours is the only one that found this that I've seen. I am not saying anything one way or the other, just interesting is all.

[@davision-en]

That's why I made a english channel as well, germans already know to appreciate my level of detail in my tests that I miss from other Videos a lot.

[@davidtan8984]

Thank you, this video was very timely as I was planning to buy the same: RF 70-200 Z (no returns but also no tax) and 2x extender. This saved me from what seems to be a very expensive mistake. I guess some people who already bought it might be upset after seeing this video lol, glad I won't be one of them.

[@ferdinandbardamu3945]

It’s like I’m watching KZbin before the influencer / fluffer era.

[@ZToT]

So I will stay with the 70-200 w/ 100-500 combo.. acutally i expected that, thank you for review

[@nir296]

Very nice video,i think you should do another sharpness test between the z to the old rf,its impossible that it less sharp in 135 and 200.

[@MrSimonyde12]

This is an absolutely heartbreaking video to watch… 😢 But also it might save me from a very expensive mistake - I’m struggling to figure out what to replace my old ef 100-400 ii with, and was considering the 70-200 z due to the amazing flexibility it would give me - and considering I have a 400mm 2.8, i thought it might be useful to have a 70-200 instead of the 100-500 due to the better aperture, and then when I only can bring one small lens I could use the 70-200 with ext… So the main purpose of the new 70-200 would be the compatibility with ext just like you did… So so sad that they f*ed up the first rf 70-200 with the missing ext compatibility… Will probably try and test out the 70-200 z for a day or two and see if I can replicate your results 😢

[@totomoyap8648]

Move from original RF 70200 2.8L to Z version couple days ago, the Z are slightly better optical performance, comfort handling, balance and ergonomic control ring/focus ring placement.

[@davision-en]

No it hasn't Optical Performance is not just sharpness and I've shown the downsides.

[@Tom_Demuth]

Thank you! For this price, the quality must be good/excellent without any doubt... Sadly ...

[@sonicck]

I was about to say tamron 70-200 g2 is a awesome lens for the price especially on the R5mark 2 don’t sleep on that lens

[@davision-en]

There is no TAMRON 70-200 G2 for RF and I wouldn't recommend anyone to buy EF Gear for a new RF Camera. That will just drop in value much more over the next years then any RF Glass.

[@sonicck]

@ I know we use the canon adapter EF to RF and yeah that’s fine that you wouldn’t recommend EF gear for RF but if that was a factor the adapter would would not exist and most of us coming from the EF days have still lots of EF glass that’s still great to use until we upgrade to more RF Glass that’s all I’m saying here, nothing wrong with your video and what you are saying that’s your opinion and it’s a good one.

[@lukapogo]

Hm, the bokeh thing is weird indeed. The lens is much lighter than the EF version while being in a similar form factor, maybe they're using diffractive optics (DO)?

[@bowdenimages1197]

I have no idea what you did, maybe you got a bad copy of the lens, but this is one of the sharpest lenses I've ever tested. It's almost as sharp as the RF 135mm 1.8. It's not even remotely comparable to the older version, in sharpness, contrast, chromatic aberrations, it's significantly better. I put a 2x converter on it, and it's nearly as sharp as the 100-500. Might want to get another copy and retest. I just saw you're shooting on the R5 MII, which could account for some variance, but the other tests I've seen were with the Mark II as well.

[@davision-en]

Man nobody then you says that the New one is far sharper then the old one, everyone says they are equal. Also it depends, 70mm 100mm, the new one is better, above the old one. Contrast is no better at all. Do you have 1 to 1 Comparison shots between old and new at hand or are you just talking from your experience using it? I never had any complaints in terms of sharpness with the old one either. And I'm not concerned with the Sharpness at all, like I say thats okay. But the Bokeh is terrible and it will be as well with your lens when it comes to specular highlights, you can see it clearly. You can also look at the Bokeh of the other tests, nobody talks about it but it's also there. Try it out for yourself, a lens it not just about it's sharpness. Most lenses this days are far sharper then you would need or can see without pixel peeping.

[@bowdenimages1197]

@@davision-en I just tried the bokeh and yeah, it looks horrendous. I did see the same effect with the older version, but nowhere near as noticeable. That's a really significant issue.

[@bowdenimages1197]

@@davision-en Just did more testing, and the new Z is definitely sharper. Every test I've done it's sharper, especially in the corners. But the onion rings are horrible. Not as bad as some other lenses I've used. The 28-70 f2 has the worst I've ever seen. Anyway, the ugly bokeh with the teleconverters as well. Makes it literally unusable. Why would you go through the trouble of designing a lens so carefully to be used with teleconverters, and then make it extremely unpleasant to use it with them.

[@bowdenimages1197]

@@davision-en So I took the lens and extender out for a walk today, and I’m now about 99% certain that you were using a filter on your lens when you had the issue with the background bokeh and teleconverter, correct? Because I just removed mine, and that issue is all but gone.

[@davision-en]

@@bowdenimages1197 No I didn't use a Filter for my Bokeh tests and not for the Teleconverter Shots either.

[@theGermanPrintingNerd]

I got this one in ebay Canon EF 70-200mm 1:4 L USM Objektiv for a super Price

[@dominiqueschenck430]

Would you be able to rent the same lens for 1 day and compare if you have the same issue?

[@davision-en]

Why should I rent the lens I already have? Look at the Comments the People have the Same Onion Rings, Petapixel also talked about them.

[@Riskbreaker2009]

Great review

[@Xirpzy]

Well thats sad. I wonder how the 50 f1.4 performs. I rather canon focused on IQ than adding gimmicky video features like aperture rings. I always use the on camera controls anyway. I tend to accidentally change the aperture when its on the lens, especially on zoom lenses.

[@davision-en]

It's a common misconception that Aperture Rings are "for Video" no Videographer will ever use the Aperture to control it's light while rolling because it will change the look of the Image. They use ND and ISO, Aperture is just for the depth of field and you normally don't change that while recording.

[@tylerbenner]

Your media, testing, and analysis is second to none! Thank you for your hard work! If you already own the 24 to 105F4 or F2.8, it seems like the 100 to 500 is a better telephoto option? The 100 f2.8 macro is fairly affordable, versatile, and makes great portraits if you need subject separation.

[@tylerbenner]

Put macro tubes in your pocket if you want macro options with 24-105 or 100-500 and don’t want to carry the 100 macro.

[@frankfeng2701]

Need a comparison with 70-200 GM2, which I think still comes slightly ahead.

[@davision-en]

Yes as I said at the end, the GM II is better in almost every way.

[@reginaldwalton]

Good Lord! Who in the world is looking at the shapes of bokeh balls in the background and saying, "this picture looks awful b/c the bokeh balls are shaped like onions and not round balls?" I have NEVER had a client complain about bokeh in the background, let alone about the shape of the bokeh balls. And how many pictures are people taking with lights in the background on a regular basis? I think these KZbinrs just find stuff to complain about so they can make a video for hits. I have had this lens since it was released to the public and have taken over 200 shots and don't see ANY issues with the lens. But I guess if you and/or your clients are really into bokeh ball shapes being perfectly round, then maybe this lens is bad for you - SMH!!

[@davision-en]

Good Lord! Who want's to know if his 4200€ Investment is even making better pictures than his Old EF or Old RF lens! Good Lord!! I can't imagine a more stupid comment then this one.

[@reginaldwalton]

@@davision-en Well, read your comment b/c it is even more stupid. The point is, no customer is complaining about the shape of bokeh balls and to say the optics in this lens are less than the previous one tells me all I need to know about your knowledge and skills or lack there of and even more about yours.

[@jonasweiss5817]

TC use doesn’t magnify lens issues, it compromises the lens performance.

[@davision-en]

That’s exactly the same thing 😂😅

[@jonasweiss5817]

No, it is not.

[@davision-en]

@ Magnifing the weaknesses is compromising it's performance since it's less sharp, has double as big CAs and so on. What are you talking about?

[@neostephens8980]

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong with that lens. If you can't get great pics and/or video from that lens and that camera, take a look in the mirror and point the finger there.

[@davision-en]

Have I said you can't? And how can nothing be wrong if it produces a worse bokeh then the Old one? Where come the Onion Rings and nasty speculars come from if there is nothing wrong with it? Why is the Sharpness in some cases worse then the Old one and even the Old EF Tele-Zoom? All of this are FACTs! I also can take great pictures with it, but thats not the question.

[@neostephens8980]

@@davision-en Just another wanna be professional KZbinr blowing hot air and doesn't know how to use gear. Wants the gear to do everything for them b/c they have NO CREATIVITY! How may of your customers (if you have any have ever complained about bokeh or that their pictures aren't sharp enough? I have that same lens and the 24-105 2.8 and they are both superb. You should sell those lenses and get you a smart phone and just point it and shoot it. SMDH

[@mikede2464]

@neostephens8980 Onion rings to that degree = ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong??? Sharpness against original 70-200 RF version is worse at 200mm = ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong??? I strongly disagree. The lens is $3,000. Those issues may not be show stopper for many people, and perhaps they would prefer the other benefits this lens provides. But to say there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong with the lens is demonstrably ABSOLUTELY NOT true.

[@mikede2464]

@@neostephens8980 I don't see how you can claim this video is blowing hot air. The video shows actual images from the lens against competitors and allowing the public to judge for themselves. This is the exact opposite of blowing hot air. Maybe if the video was faking the images of the 70-200 Z you could claim he was blowing hot air....but I see no evidence of that. In my view you seem very threatened that he didn't like the lens. Why??? Who cares if he didn't like it???

[@neostephens8980]

@@mikede2464 Because I have this lens and have taken hundreds of photos and don't see any sharpness fall off. This guy must not know what the hell he's doing. And you must have gone to the same school with him, RFJ Jr and Dr. Oz.

[@dragSD666]

Expensive lens with poor performance. Thanks for the great review.

[@lazaroantoniozundaherrera2706]

You are totaly wrong🤣🤣

[@mikede2464]

@@lazaroantoniozundaherrera2706 He seems totally right to me....

[@davision-en]

@@lazaroantoniozundaherrera2706 so why is he wrong? Do you have other Facts then me?