How Good is the Canon RF F/4 Trinity?

We've all heard about the trinity of zoom lenses, the 16-35mm f/2.8 lens, the 24-70mm f/2.8 lens and the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens... But what about the f/4 lenses? They're cheaper, they're often lighter and smaller, how do they stack up and what do they offer? Canon sent us three RF f/4 lenses so let's talk about it.
Check out the lenses here:
Canon RF 14-35mm f/4 L IS USM Lens - bit.ly/36RR38e
Canon RF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens - bit.ly/3K2haIl
Canon RF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM Lens - bit.ly/3iJhfEt
​ .
. .
.
Our Video / Photo Kit:
Sony a7 III - www.parkcamera...
Sony 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Lens - www.parkcamera...
Zoom H6 Audio Recorder - www.parkcamera...
Rode NTG4 - www.parkcamera...
Check out our used department here: www.parkcamera...
Trade in your old photography equipment with us here: www.parkcamera...
Check us out everywhere:
Our Website - www.parkcamera...
Facebook - / parkcameras
Twitter - / parktweets
Instagram - / parkcameras
Blog - www.parkcamera...

[@andyv6127]

My f4 trio is a great set up. The weight saving over F2.8 ~ 860g is significant when walking about, in addition to the space saving. The price saving pays for a nice holiday and a light weight tripod. All 77mm filter threads = saving on screw in filter price over the larger 2.8 versions.

[@boftx1]

got an EOS-R about a year and a half ago and over the course of time have phased out my normal EF glass for RF glass. I did stay with the RF 100-400mm f5.l6 - 8 simply because I wanted the longer reach when compared to the RF 70-200 f4L. I love the RF 14-35mm f4 and can't say enough about the RF 24-105mm f4L which is always on my camera unless I have a reason to take it off.

[@robertbirnbach2312]

it is the right tool for the right job. For 95% of my product studio work, I would shoot at f5.6 if you are shooting architecture you are almost never going to shoot at 2.8 so even working pros will have a reason to buy an f4 lens. As a matter of a fact as a working pro if the f4 lens meets 90% of my needs I would buy the f4 and rent the 2.8 when a job requires it and spend the savings on marketing. If you get the gig you can always get the gear. For me, I need to know a piece of gear will pay for itself within a year or a don't buy I rent it. You need to evaluate the gear you buy as an investment as opposed to what you want or to have bragging rights. My clients don't care if I "only" have the f4 lens they care if I get the results they want.

[@tvm2209]

What a good mindset to have! Thanks for sharing such wisdom for us newjacks

[@bodinian]

Another important thing to remember is regular people don't care about the aperture we use or the ISO, they care about the way the pictures make them feel.

[@capture_the_stoke9646]

Worth a mention with these rf f4 lenses, the close focusing distance enables you to get super bokeh even at f4. I’m with you the wider lens f4 is plenty. I upgraded the rf 70-200 f4 to the 2.8 version and yes I like it a lot but I could get similar shots with the F4 version also, I’d be happy with either. And for fast lens just have a prime is my approach now be it the 50mm or 85mm as 2.8 is’t exactly 1.2 or 1.4 anyways

[@diversedad7954]

I am a working professional and owned the original 70-200 2.8IS for almost 15 years until it was stolen from me last year on my photo shoot. I honestly didn’t even use that lens very often because it was so big and clunky and I normally try to take as little as possible with me when I can get away with it. I purchased the RF 24 to 105 a couple years ago and I have been so impressed with that F4 lens. I have really been considering getting the RF 70-200 F4 mainly just for portability. I think if it’s that much smaller and lighter I will be much more likely to throw it in my bag and use it unlike the old version or even the newer 2.8 version. Money isn’t really an issue since this is a purchase for my business, but I’m really on the fence about which version I should buy. For 99% of the stuff I do I think the F4 version will be fine but then again there are situations where getting every bit of light I can is very helpful.

[@BusStopBourbon]

Lighter, sharp, fast, quite and cost less. As a hybrid shooter I have these 3 lenses and the 50mm 1.2 and it serves everything I shoot. Pre-ordered the 135mm RF and I can't wait for the 35mm RF 1.?

[@nosegarrett]

Just checked prices and for the 2.8 trio the cost would be around $7,600. For the f4 trio the cost would be around $4,400 for a difference of $3,200! For that you could almost get an R5 body, or a 85 1.2 or the 135 1.8 and still have some change. Or maybe go nuts and get the 28-70 f2.

[@boftx1]

And now, one year later, the advent of greatly improve AI-based denoise functions make higher ISO values even less of a concern. :) I LOVE my RF F4 trinity! I use them on both my R6m2 and R7. (Although the RF 100-400mm is usually on my R7 and the RF 24-105mm is on my R6m2.) And as an added bonus, though it might not seem like much, all three take the same 77mm filters!

[@CarlosCorrea-uj2vx]

This the trinity I'm slowly building for me. If I ever need the dreamy nice blury back ground I can just pull one of my cheap primes Canon RF 50mm 1.8 my, 85mm F2 or my 35mm 1.8 for portraits. They are not the professional Canon lens but for me they are good enough and if I use the tools I have well I can become creative which is what I strive to be anyway. Thanks for the video and good points on using this lens to create amazing pictures and videos without breaking your bank.

[@nomad0714]

@Park Cameras, You’re spot on. Been obsessed with shallow dof but I have the primes to serve that. But for travel, man it gets heavy and I can carry like a mule but doesn’t mean it’s fun to do. Having the f4 trinity, I realized the appreciation of the small form factor and lightweight zoom lenses and as you mentioned in the video, I realized not being able to shoot wide, I discovered an appreciation for deep dof sharpness, details…. And with OIS and having the R5, I can adjust the SS and ISO as needed. Price aside, I agree with you that having that extra stop of light at f2.8 gives you more option but I already have the wide primes. Shooting from f4, 5.6, 8, and 11 has been great. Good video sharing a different perspective!

[@jessejayphotography]

The 14-35mm is the stand out lens here, especially with its close focus ability. Super flexible.

[@DavidBajayo]

Great review. I owned the 24-105 F4 and the 70-200 F4. Native for my R5C. Then I have a plethora of prime glasses with the EF mount and adptor.

[@iancurrie8844]

You are completely correct. Reality check: 24-105 F4 gives shallower depth if field at 105mm F4 than a 24-70 F2.8 does at 70mm F2.8

[@esoxhu]

Thanks for your video. As you mentioned about 24-104 f4 (you were using teh EF version a lot) I'm still using the EF 70-200 f4 IS L on my R6 with the adapter. Do you think it's woth to upgrade to the RF f4 version now? Ok it's smaller, and lighter, but does it give more than the EF version gives regarding to optical quality, AF speed and other factors?

[@Induleo]

Your video helped me out. Coming from a 5d4 a few years ago with some 2.8 zoom lenses. They helped me move to the mirror-less world with adapters, but i wasn't happy about the camera balance. So i started with some rf primes and quickly realized that i'm often shooting to wide. This had me thinking and i looked at moste of my good pictures an realized they were rarely wide open. So i decided to give the F4 lenses a go, i haven't completed the trinity, since the 24-105 is still missing, but i'm really happy with my choice(14-35 and 70-200). In the case i would like a small depth of field, i will mount my rf 85 1.4 (samyang) or my 35 1.4 (sigma ef) primes. Not sure yet if i'll get the 24-105 or maybe just see if they bring us the rf50 1.4 any time soon. With only one EF lens left, my bag got a lot lighter and much more compact.

[@tjdultra6982]

Just switched to the FF R6 kit from Oly E-M1 II with 12-40 & 40-150mm 2.8 PRO lenses. These Trinity F4 L lenses are indeed versatile enough especially with how R6 is very useable on high ISOs so you dont really have to worry about that. Also considering the very important aspect nowadays is the price value. Very informative video especially for us that have a constant GAS lol.

[@skolenimation]

Just jumped to an R6mkII from a 5DmkII and reevaluating my trinity for mostly landscape with some product photography. The RF 15-35 f/2.8 L replaces my EF 17-40 f/4 L, a Helios 44-2 replaces my EF 50 f/1.8, and the RF 70-200 f/4 may replace my EF 28-300 f/3.5 L. Mostly for weight and size reasons, but I'm finding it hard to give up that focal range all-in-one. Do you think going with an RF 24-105 f/4 and RF 100-400 f/5.6 is worth considering instead?

[@cerealkiller4248]

I bought an R6 after seeing ISO 12,800 shots, incredible for me as I came from a 7D Mk1 where ISO 800 was noisy. F4 lens for me is absolutely great. I use Fuji for family outings, 3 lightweight primes no slower than F2

[@mnrafter]

This is an awesome video. One of the things that you miss, is talking about image stabilization. With the RF F4 lenses, I will rarely, unless I am running while trying to take a photo, experience camera shake. Yes, I lose one stop. That one stop won't make a difference in a major way. Yes, I lose Bokah. But at what cost? The F4 lenses with the lens stabilization and the IBIS, are amazing. Yep, the cost of the F2.8 are price point higher, and the F4 versions are all amazing lenses, as you pointed out. Yep, I bailed on all of my DSLR and EF lenses, to convert to EOS R & EOS R5. I have the "Trinity" and added two other things to round out my collection. I added the RF 100-500 F4.5-7.1 and the Extender RF 1.4x. While this does not replace every EF lens that I owned, which was like 14, it covers almost every aspect of the EF series, but in 4 lenses. Again, I will lose some aspects switching from my F1.2, F2, F2.8, but I gain by adding only 4 lenses, at a significantly reduced weight, but cover most aspects of what I am shooting. This is just my 2 cents worth!

[@williamgollatz1911]

How often are "professional" usage going f/

[@petervang9300]

7D mk II and R6, EF 16-35 F/2.8 mk I, EF 24-105 F/4 mk I, EF 70-200 F/2.8 mk II, RF 24-70 F/2.8, RF 35 F1.8, RF 85 F/2.0 and that's a good collection for my private work and yes F/2.8 are expensive but they can do the job in low light, but at daytime an F/4 would almost do the same work....

[@Hodenkat]

Bottom line, I'm not a professional photographer. It's a hobby. The f/2.8 would be dreamy to have but it's way beyond my budget personally. As something I enjoy doing and not a way to make money, I can't justify the cost of the wider aperture version.

[@Benas_]

Great set of lenses, you can get all three, plus some primes for the price of the 2.8 trinity.

[@francistheriault5622]

I own these 3 lenses too and they are fantastic. With the R6 or R5 I even shoot interior action shots and they look great.

[@lordnelson63]

Just upgraded to mirrorless R6 II and was deciding which lenses to buy first. Your video made my decision very easy. Taking the 14-35mm and 24-105mm to my tip to Greece in a month. Thanks for the video.

[@rossbarton5900]

This is a cool thought provoking video especially for folks moving into the Canon RF system. A couple of things that also are worth mentioning and thinking about. The EOS R5 with it's 45MP sensor and priced just a little higher than the EOS R6 (20MP) is perhaps a consideration for some photographers, because with the higher MP count it will increase the usefulness of these lenses (how much you can crop). Also - instead of the RF 70-200 f/4 IS USM it is worth considering purchasing the RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1 IS USM too as it will bring a lot more subjects into range for many photographers (wildlife, motorsport, field sports etc. - yes I realise the 100-500 is significantly more expensive...). Everyone gets caught up in the "Holy Trinity" of lenses covering from ~16mm to 200mm but 3 lenses can now cover 14mm to 500mm (The RF 14-35, RF 24-105, RF 100-500) and with either the R6 or R5 this is a powerful and very flexible lens lineup. Also may phoographers in the Canon system will already own EF glass that can be adapted - for example my EF 16-35mm f/4 IS USM is a gorgeous lens - so why sell it? Keep it instead of buying the RF 14-35mm, save money and focus on lenses in the RF lineup that add capability.

[@colinjohnson8042]

Get these for travel. I have the F2.8 versions but cannot take all 3 as carry on with 2 bodies. With the F4 versions, I can pack 2 R3s as well as EF 24 F1.4 RF 50 F1.2 and RF 100 F2.8.

[@magiccarpetrider4594]

Ah bro, me too. And 25, 50, 100! I agree; I’m a Zeiss lens guy, manual focus primes!

[@dps6198]

I guess you guys have given up on flash?

[@Paws2Explore]

I am a landscape photographer who very rarely shoots below F5.6 so for me there is no need for the F2.8. I have the 24-105mm EF L, 70-200mm EF L which I have used since 2018 on my 80D but having just purchased the R6, am looking to purchase the RF 24-105 f4 to lighten my Shimoda X50 as I like to hike out for the day and capture whatever catches my eye. Add filters, food, jetboil plus my drone to my bag and it can get pretty heavy. For me it’s a no brainer I have no need for the extra weight or the extra stop.

[@JadenWhite]

I use the F4 RF 24-105 on my R5 for video and stills. Quite easy to hit focus at F4. This lens has been living on my camera for 2 years!

[@claydowdy9596]

The RF F/4 trinity works for me. Smaller, lighter and cheaper.. AND I still have my EF F2.8 Trinity if it becomes necessary.

[@alexandreprevost4192]

Same arguments for EF version

[@jamiermathlin]

If you never shoot wide apertures, landscape ,cityscape etc, then there is no need to go F2.8, save the weight, the size and the cost. Clever professionals shoot F4 when they do not need f2.8, I shoot this F4 trinity, as I travel a lot and have no need for the F2.8 weight or size in my bag, I mostly shoot F5.6 to F11 so these three lens are next to perfect !! Thanks for the review !

[@BrandonTalbot]

I love my Rf70-200f4 and I love it. The 24-105 makes sense, the 14-35 not so much. It's not that much smaller, lighter and it's still crazy expensive. Now if Canon could make something compatible to the new 16-35 like Sony just came out with then I think it would make more sense.

[@johnclay7644]

nice new content and good luck with cannon week

[@Jeje-rb1vu]

My trio is the same but I got the 200-500 instead of the 70-200...I own an R5 and R6 and I hesitated getting 2.8 vs F4 but after watching many videos, I opted out of the 2.8.. I shoot mainly wildlife photography and hope I won't regret it :)

[@gary_michael_flanagan_wildlife]

I always love your videos, thanks all!! I do need to say that the 24-70mm focal length has always been so boring to me. I don’t do events or weddings so I can see why this may be a much better option than a prime. If I want a nice portrait and blurred background, I always reach for an 85mm f 1.4, for which the samyang is phenomenal. And this is coming from a canon snob. For landscapes, I am debating the 24-70 versus the 24-105. I think the 24-105 would be the better choice between the two. I also own the amazing 11-24mm lens.

[@magiccarpetrider4594]

24-70, worse 28-70, are worthless. Get a 28.

[@servo.images]

What about for portraiture? I own two of the RF F4 Trinity lenses: 24-105 and 70-200, respectively--they are fantastic!! However, apart from landscape and video, how well does the 14-35 differ in regards to environmental portraiture? I have yet to see that. I am heavily debating on this lens or adapting the EF 16-35 F2.8 as my ultra-wide angle zoom to round out my kit, but haven't yet established a solid verdict... I hope that I will be able to get an answer on this matter of question provided. I am a professional freelance photographer who specializes in portraiture, product, and landscape as a whole.

[@jkdubya85]

I've got the 14-35 and the 24-105, but went with the f/2.8 on the 70-200. They all work for me.

[@raulgolfs]

14-35 perfect for my golf vlogs!!

[@Babbis44]

I’d say the $2,100 difference in price is a tough pill to swallow between both trinity’s at least in my opinion

[@seanmuller5145]

Great Video my friend. I also have the 24-105 F4 it came with first camera the 6D. You are so right about this lens and how is does 80% of my photos. I also put it on my crop sensor 80D which makes it a 38-168 f4 . I find F4 is more forgiving on getting the shot, seems to make life a little easier on moving targets. I'm seriously looking into the RF 70-200mm f4 for my R6MARK2 setup. Ofcouse the 24-105 is on that R6MARK2 80% of the time as well. Great video, I like how state that F4 can also get the job done as well. The 24-105 @ 70 -105mm f4 creates very good to great Portraits in find and is realy a sweet spot for that len.

[@adrianllagunot]

I used to own the EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, and loved it... Having the f/2.8 is very nice when needed, after a while it became evident that I rarely shot at f2.8. Because of this while moving to mirrorless, I went for the RF version f/4, the wight and size difference is unbelievably convenient. The lens is super sharp, and at 200 it gives enough amount of blur/bokeh wide open.

[@CryptoJones]

I have the EF version of the 24-105 f/4. The only reason I think I might go with the f/2.8 version of the 70-200 is because paired with the RF 85mm f/2 I think the combo makes an easy travel kit when you don't want to carry your full camera bag.

[@johnherzel718]

I’ve always been a fan of the f4 zooms and fast primes approach. My favorites are the EF 17-40 f4 L 70-200 f4 L. But I sold the 70-200 for the 70-300 f4-5.6 L lens and I couldn’t be happier. I like the extra reach even with the variable aperture. I have a Tamron 70-200 f2.8 (G2) which I almost never use. It’s so much heavier. I also have the EF 24-105 f4 L which stays at home a lot as well. Not because of any distaste or flaws but because the 17-40 and the 70-300 are all I generally need. I will take my nifty fifty out as well but it stays in the bag until well past sundown. If money were no object I would absolutely get the 28-70 f2.0, and probably upgrade my RP to the R5. But I would still go with the RF 14-35 f4 zoom and the RF 70-200 f4. It’s only 1 stop of light for 1/2 the weight. Oh and nice job on the video.

[@andyv6127]

I sold the 17-40 to get the 14-35 on my R5. 14-35 is a great lens but I am amazed at how I wish for those extra 5mm on the long end. It only it was 14-40, or even the same at 17-40. FYI no multiple exposure capability on 14-35

[@johnherzel718]

@@andyv6127 To be honest I love the 17-40 because it goes to 40. I have the RF 16 mm prime to travel light with. I also have an EF 20mm which I find to be wide enough quite often. But I shoot a lot at the 40 mm end, enough that I would prefer they make a 20-50 f4 to replace the 17-40. I don’t want IS necessarily but it wouldn’t hurt. The 17-40 was bought on a whim because it was on sale. It has become my favorite very quickly.

[@darylcheshire1618]

Oh well I still have the EF50mmf/1.2L. I thought the first series EF24-70mmf/2.8L a bit heavy and left it at home. I have the R5 and bought the RF24-105f/4L and I love it. I was put off by using the EF24-70mmf/2.8L and the RF adaptor. In photography, there were always the trade-off you have to consider.

[@fuzzytalz]

F/4 zooms for me: EF 16-35/4L IS, RF 24-105/4L IS and RF 70-200/4L IS along with strategic specialist primes: RF 35/2 IS Macro, Sigma 35/1.4 Art (for EF), RF 50/1.2L, RF 85/1.2L and EF 100/2.8L IS Macro. No regrets passing on the f/2.8 zooms.

[@emptyandseephotos7858]

On first sight of video I understood with my previous knowledge changed my mind than I saw your video fully I agree nice job you saved a lot

[@JamesReece271]

just got an rf 24-105 f4 for £800 off e-bay my first rf lens to replace my ef trinity

[@bjornhaakon4771]

Well that is not correct f2.8 A. is mainly for portrait photography in a studio and portrait outdoors. You dont get sharp landscape photo in f2.8 compare to f11. The lense is sharpest throughout the photo at f9-16 for landscape photography. That is why 50mm is at f1.2 for the best quality portait lense, and Canon RF 85mm F1.2L USM DS Lens.

[@FreddyBoyBoy]

If you get a wide angle lens for vlogging F4 is great. What is the point to have a wide angle lens with a lower F stop if you are going to blur out all the background anyway

[@2cv666]

70-200 F4 its awesome, 24-105 its my main lens and 14-35 perfect .. F2.8 are great but maybe in 70-200 range ..honestly for me using 2.8 its once in while every 5 years . great explanation

[@davidkouris2832]

Wow, wow! I so needed to watch this video. I appreciate your honesty and insight. I purchased the R6 with the RF 24-105 less than 3 weeks ago so my son inherited my 5Dmk IV He invited me to join him for a 30th birthday party/Surprise Engagement Party Photo Shoot. I only had one afternoon to watch some videos and practice with the controls & settings. Fortunately, it was outside during the late afternoon in a backyard My "Assignment" from my son was to have fun and capture a few "Group Shots" during the event. I set it to Manual Mode and started shooting as if I still had my 5D, but it wasn't what I was expecting. As the afternoon became early evening, I got a bit discouraged so I committed a "Sin!" I put it in Fully Auto Mode. I know! But it worked amazing I even added a flash and turned it low. Most of the photos were taken at f4 as chosen by the camera They were damn good With that being said, now I feel comfortable after watching your video purchasing the 70-200 f4 RF Lens and possibly the 14-35 f4 I did purchase the adaptor so I can continue to use my "Brick 70-200 f2.8 until the extra cash flows in. Sorry for the Novel but I appreciate you and your video David Kouris

[@donbethel7675]

I have this exact setup on my EOS R, and ill say its great. Not only the weight saving, but living in Hawaii, and shooting in the day, F4 is more than enough. Also this setup offers the same 77mm filter size. So I went with the Freewell Polarized filter system, making switching lens and filters a cool Hawaiian breeze. I'm able to carry everything and a mic and tripod in a shoulder sling bag, making getting the shot that much easier. With this setup I'm easily able to go from portraits, to landscape, to video, in so many focal lengths, making sunset family photos, to product photography, or even hiking to the nearest water fall for a selfie. This is more than I need and have lost the need for primes in my line of work. Might not be for everyone, but I think everyone could find a use for it.

[@Aneliuse]

Hey man, i have an eos R too. I really want this setup as well. If i could ask; often do you use 24-105 and 70-200? Do you change between them often, or do you prefer one over the other?

[@donbethel7675]

@@Aneliuse Aloha, I can't say that I prefer one over the other, but having all three I can't go back now. They all have the same filter size, so I opted for the magnet polarized filter, so switching is a breeze. It having L series lenses thru out the focal length, that are compact and light weight. Canon nailed it with this F4 trinity, I highly recommend it, for business for hobby. I never take just one lense, as they are light and fit in the one bag I have. So no matter what the subject, I'm ready with L series glass, at a focal length from 14mm-200mm. So if the Picutre isn't great, Then it was my doing!

[@unclebuck5957]

the light weight is great had the 24-70 2.8 sold and got the f4 much lighter same quality . The 70-210 f4 is small and light , wish I could get the 14-35 can't afford

[@stefanopiacquadio6473]

I shoot for a hobby, but I wouldn’t mind scaling up to “semipro”. I mainly do landscape, but I’m starting to enjoy portrait as well. I recently switched to the R system. I have a (quite heavy) Sigma 70-200 f2.8. Would you say it is worth spending the money on the rf 70-200 f4? Or maybe better deal with the weight and take the 14-35 (missing focal length in my gear)?

[@simonryan6850]

I’m going for the F4 for all of my indoor live music events

[@sweden01ful]

i have rf 24-105 f4 and ef 70-300 f4-56 but 24 makes 95 % photos, I walk much in city and I don't feel this lens so much

[@smuy3782]

My 24-105 in EF was used on 95% of my paid work. And 99% of my personal work. Long enough, wide enough, fast enough, stabilised.. Great lens! I had it matched with a 16-35 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8 and the f1.2 primes. I've just jumped into mirrorless so have the opportunity to buy a fresh set of lenses and it's the f4 zooms I'm buying for the full range and the f2 zoom instead of primes. Don't overthink it! Way more portable so I can take the whole kit everywhere now and if you can show me the optical quality difference in a real world scenario I'll buy you a beer!

[@adibmajid9886]

thank you for the explanation! This helps me to decide what's the best for my case. I'm almost sold to Sony but I just love the capability and color of Canon as currently I'm from APS-C Canon 77D. I'm going to buy R5 with kit lens RF 24-105mm F4. I consider myself as traveller hobbyist, only stills not shooting videos.

[@mirasga]

I'm sticking with my EF 24-105mm F4L II. But with the UWA, I'm still holding on to the 17-40 F4L. Still torn between the 14-35mm F4L and 15-35mm F2.8L. For my small kit option, I just bring 2 lenses, the EF 24-105L II and the Tamron 45mm F1.8 or the 17-40L and the RF 70-200mm F2.8L. If I just have to bring one lens, I'd take the 28-300mm F3.5-5.6L. :D

[@shadowfoxsports]

I have the R6 and also the RF 24-105 f4 and the RF 70-200 f4, and everything you said about these lenses is accurate. Love these f4 lenses.

[@oliverkhoo]

Thanks, hobbyist here. I’m sold with the f4

[@JetCooper3D]

Subscribed - glad I found you... thank you!

[@DarkstarDarth]

Between the IS in a R6 and an IS Len you can go down over 7 stops.

[@Triflixfilms]

What is you color grading process for video? subbed

[@oliverkhoo]

Thank you for this video, good in dept of thoughts of photography

[@SanathanDharm]

absolutely amazing video!

[@ozz2nd]

good enough. but 2.8 trios are still best.

[@richardft2124]

Would it make sense to travel with the 14-35, a 50 1.8, and the 70-200?

[@marcmartin1709]

I'm about to pack my Rf 24-105 f4 for general walk around, Rf 35 f1.8 for low light and debating about the extra weight of my Rf 70-200 f4 - not sure it will get enough use to justify carrying it ... I love my 14-35 but find I can get similar style shots using my mobile.

[@jeffreyhill4705]

All the RF L lenses have improved contrast when shooting into a light source. I get the opposite effect with the 135 f2 EF. Both can be really beautiful. The 14 to 35 and the 70 to 200 f4 L are really sharp on the R5. Always rent before you buy.

[@rokpodlogar6062]

the question is, is an f/4 lens as sharp at f/4 as f/2.8 is at f/4

[@Aneliuse]

2.8 is sharper because you can stop it down i think

[@rokpodlogar6062]

@@Aneliuse i think the answer is more complicated than that. it probably depends on the glass elements in a lens and the quality and design of it.

[@Aneliuse]

@@rokpodlogar6062 ahh i thought you meant 24-105 vs 24-70

[@danielson_9211]

I got lucky the 15-35 2,8 was on sale for 1999 vs 2399 while the14-35 was 1499, so the price difference was about 500 more so I got the 2.8 version, which I don't need for landscapes but when you go into museums and aquariums that 2.8 helps alot.

[@novainvicta]

I’ve the EF f2.8 trinity with my Canon 5DS but with my R6 I have the RF f4 trinity both of which I use for portraits. The RF 24-105mm and the RF 70-200mm in particular are awesome and I find I have scaled back my use of the EF 2.8 trinity. I think when I’ve purchased the R5 the EF setup will go.

[@loudandclearmedia]

F4 makes a lot of sense at the tighter focal lengths, just because of the depth of field if nothing else. I have a 70-200 2.8 (Gmaster) that I think I've only shot at 2.8 a handful of times, especially at the 200mm end I don't think I ever have. Particularly with the 70-200s the 2.8 versions are massive in both price and weight, and it's just not worth it unless you KNOW you need that fast aperture (like, for indoor sports for example). Save some money and buy the F4...you'll get the same images, and your back will thank you.

[@patanjali307]

Considering that Canon subsidized this video, it's hard to listen to anything that is said. It's basically a Canon Commercial. :(

[@6042833]

Yes it is poor man lens f4. If you got money you will avoid.

[@paullanoue5228]

Not if you’re a landscape photographer. Carry gear around all day hiking up steep trails. You will get a new appreciation of F/4 zooms.

[@michaelkaufman9625]

Thinking of getting the f2.8 24-70mm RF with the f4 70-200RF with the canon R5 body