# Review: Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM by TDP



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 26, 2021)

> Bryan at The Digital Picture has completed his exhaustive review of brand new Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM. A lens that really showcases Canon’s ability to make new and unique designs for older dependable lenses.
> It shouldn’t shock us that Bryan came away thoroughly impressed with the new offering from Canon, and I personally can’t wait to get my hands on one.
> From TDP
> The Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens was a game-changer, and the Canon RF 70-200mm F4 L IS USM Lens is the same, taking the game down to a new size and weight low. Those carrying this frequently-needed telephoto zoom lens for extended periods will love this lens’s new size and weight.
> As part of the elite L-series, the RF 70-200 lens is extremely well built, including environmental sealing. As said before, this lens is ready for the rigors of daily professional use. The smooth external design...



Continue reading...


----------



## HMC11 (Feb 26, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> The fourth reason would be bokeh, but you can get equivalent bokeh with an f/4 or smaller lens, too. Bokeh really comes from the apeture width in mm, not the f/stop. And a 24-105/4 has a 25-26mm aperture wide open at the long end, identical to a 24-70/2.8.


I am a little confused here. Doesn't bokeh depend on subject distance? At the same subject distance, and keeping the same perspective means shooting at the same focal length, which would make a 2.8 produce a greater bokeh effect than a 4? If we keep the same perspective, but shoot at long ends of both, it would mean that the 24-70 would have to get closer to the subject compared with the 24-105, which reduces the depth of field and hence (?) have a greater blurring effect?


----------



## H. Jones (Feb 26, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> I think the age of the f/2.8 trinity is past us.
> 
> It used to be necessary for AF, so we could see a bright image in the viewfinder, and so we could shoot fast enough to avoid camera shake blur.
> 
> ...



The fact that people are buying dozens and hundreds of the $3000 28-70 F/2 so fast that it sells out of stock within seconds and has been generally out of stock since July is pretty great evidence that there's more to the story than you're implying. Plus, the 300mm F/2.8 wouldn't sell for $6000 if you could pull off the same images with the $600 300mm F/4. It's almost as if there's different kinds of photography with needs that are different than yours.

I personally would far, far prefer the 28-70 F/2 over the 24-105 F/4 and have never considered picking up an F/4 zoom in my life other than my 16-35mm, which I only use for landscapes. I primarily shoot night time breaking news at over ISO 8000 at F/2.8, so F/4 just isn't an option for that. Neither is F/4 workable for people who cover night sports in badly lit gyms and stadiums. ISO has improved over time, but even on the R5 downsized things are going to be a mess at over ISO 8000. Nevermind the fact that while ISO noise has gotten better, you're still throwing out almost all of the camera's dynamic range and color depth at those ISOs.

You'll note also that AF is still determined by aperture of the lens. The EOS R, R5, and R6 can focus in the lowest light possible when using an F/1.2 lens, and every stop wider on a lens still allows the camera to focus easier in the dark. Wider lenses also allow the camera to run the viewfinder at a higher framerate at the same exposure in the dark, since it doesn't need to drop shutterspeed to make up exposure. I've definitely seen examples of it while using the 100-400 with an extender at F/8, where certain shade situations make the exposure time wide open drop long enough that you get framerate drops or blurry movement in the viewfinder.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 26, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> I think the age of the f/2.8 trinity is past us.
> 
> It used to be necessary for AF, so we could see a bright image in the viewfinder, and so we could shoot fast enough to avoid camera shake blur.
> 
> ...


Uhhhhh, no. The only way f/2.8 lenses are over for me is if there happens to be something faster I can pick. I can always stop down if needed. The problem is I don't want to take a hole saw to a lens if I want it wider.


----------



## AJ (Feb 27, 2021)

Bokeh refers to the aesthetic quality of the blur, and has nothing to do with the size of the circle of confusion?


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 27, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> ???
> 
> There is. With the massive weight savings from not dragging around f/2.8 zooms and teleconverters, you now have the space in the bag for a 85/1.2 and 35/1.0.
> 
> I mean, you be you. If you're content with f/2.8 and never want to go bigger, enjoy your life. I _do_ want the big apertures, and I'm content to let go of the 2.8 trinity in order to give me the carrying capacity for some truly big apertures.


By the same token you be you, but anybody that declares “the age of f2.8 zooms is past” obviously doesn’t shoot the same situations many of us do. When you walk into a situation where you have to deliver shots but you really don’t know what you are going to walk into, location, numbers of people, access, perspectives, lighting etc then nothing touches the 2.8 zooms for flexibility and utility. They are the best general purpose lenses out there. They are not the smallest, lightest, or have the fastest apertures, but there is a very good reason Canon released them as early in the RF cycle as they did


----------



## Bdbtoys (Feb 27, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> ???
> 
> There is. With the massive weight savings from not dragging around f/2.8 zooms and teleconverters, you now have the space in the bag for a 85/1.2 and 35/1.0.
> 
> I mean, you be you. If you're content with f/2.8 and never want to go bigger, enjoy your life. I _do_ want the big apertures, and I'm content to let go of the 2.8 trinity in order to give me the carrying capacity for some truly big apertures.



There are always compromises... but who's to say someone doesn't have 2.8's and use the fast primes? Also grabbing a 2.8 can prevent you from having to pull out a prime if you're using 4's.

Primes aside... The choice of 2.8's vs 4's (or even the mighty f2) zooms basically comes down to specs, versatility, cost, size/weight. Or can be as simple as what's on your shelf and what you're taking for the day depending on the needs/expectations.

For me personally, the 2.8's are more versatile. But that is _my_ perspective, there is no right way to look at it, nor can you fault anyone for looking at it differently. Honestly, I go back and forth in what I feel is the 'most versatile' depending on what I'm doing at the time... and can easily justify many choices of kits... but I typically settle back to the 2.8's.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 27, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> ???
> 
> There is. With the massive weight savings from not dragging around f/2.8 zooms and teleconverters, you now have the space in the bag for a 85/1.2 and 35/1.0.
> 
> I mean, you be you. If you're content with f/2.8 and never want to go bigger, enjoy your life. I _do_ want the big apertures, and I'm content to let go of the 2.8 trinity in order to give me the carrying capacity for some truly big apertures.


Yeah well, that sounds like a 180 from what you were saying in your original post. I took it as "f/4 is the new f/2.8" (paraphrased) and that wider apertures are no longer needed by the rest of us. You were, in your post, making the declaration for us all. Kinda like the people who declare, "Nobody needs f/1.2". It wasn't worded as a personal epiphany. So you go and be you. I've always been just little old me.

I've had the RF 28-70 f/2L, RF 50 f/1.2L, and the RF 85 f/1.2L. I've also had the RF 24-105 f/4L. While the 24-105 was a nice lens, it just didn't fit for me... though I wish I still had it.

God willing, after the pandemic turmoil of the last year, I'll one day get those lenses again. The weight is the least of my worries. Dropping one, that's a worry.

"I think the age of the f/2.8 trinity is past us.

It used to be necessary for AF, so we could see a bright image in the viewfinder, and so we could shoot fast enough to avoid camera shake blur.

None of these are necessary any more."


----------



## Joules (Feb 27, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> I think the age of the f/2.8 trinity is past us.


Why would Canon prioritize the release of their fast zoom lenses then? The 15-35, 24-70, 70-200 2.8 versions are all already out. So is the 28-70 2.0. Seems to me Canon considers these to be more important offerings.

You are correct in saying that for two lenses, so long as their physical aperture is the same (focal length / f-number), i.e. 70-200 2.8 and 100-400 5.6, you can take two images with the exact same settings, including subject distance, and crop the wider lens to match the longer one to end up with virtually identical pictures.

To me, that's a great argument for fast aperture lenses, not against them. Given a high quality lens and high resolution body, you essentially save on carrying an additional long lens with you. That's less weight and cost if the entire bag is taken into account.

People complain that there's no TC support in these lenses, but if they previously used a 5D IV and are now on an R5 they have a 1.2 TC essentially built into the body. When the high resolution R eventually comes out at or above 90 MP, it will be like an internal 1.7 TC. And I doubt those will be the last increases in resolution we'll see.


----------



## HMC11 (Feb 27, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> Take a 85/1.2, 135/2, and 200/2.8., heck and 300/4 and 400/5.6 too.
> 
> They all have basically the same 72mm "entrance pupil," or aperture (as distinct from f-stop).
> 
> ...


Er...r, not quite sure I agree with everything. Yes, at a fixed subject distance, the perspective is the same whatever focal length is used, and hence they have essentially the same 'compression'. However, to 'fix' the subject size, different focal lengths would mean different subject distance, and indeed the blurring effects would be different. And while an object at infinity would always appear to be a point source, there are also objects not quite at infinity which would then vary in size. In other words, at sufficiently far distance such that it can be treated as effectively at infinity, then it doesn't matter what the subject distance is, as effectively the same amount of light from these 'infinity' points pass through an identical size aperture. The same is not true for nearer objects that cannot be treated as effectively at infinity. For a light source at such a distance, the amount of flux/light reaching the camera would depend on the distance from the light source to the camera following an inverse square law. Hence, a shorter focal length means it will collect more light (being nearer the object), whereas a longer focal length less as it is further away. Wouldn't this affect the blurring effect? Besides, a shorter focal length, hence wider field of view, would naturally increase the number of light sources that can reach the camera, which leads to a greater blurring effect. Have I understood this correctly?


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 27, 2021)

"This is the death of anything faster."

This, in fact, is an excellent example of how our own shooting habits, styles, and subjects lead us to believe that what works for me must be right for every other photographer. (Personally, when first learning about the 100-500mm's fastest aperture at 500mm of "only f/7.1," I was outraged. Now I love that lens!)

How pervasive this myopic view of EVERYTHING has become in an age when we have more information at our fingertips than ever before! But, perhaps, with our increasing isolation, our ability to find opinions confirming ours, while being able to block counterpoints, it should not be surprising.

There are already so many well stated arguments for having choice in lens speed. I'm afraid anybody who posts such nonsense as "my fastest aperture is sufficient for the rest of humanity," won't be persuaded by another dose of logic.

Thank you, Canon, for providing CHOICE! (And, dang, would this be cool for travel so I could leave my f/2.8 to rest at home!)


----------



## Antono Refa (Feb 27, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> It used to be necessary for AF, so we could see a bright image in the viewfinder, and so we could shoot fast enough to avoid camera shake blur.


Is MILC AF aperture blind, and focuses at f/4 as quickly and accurately as at f/2.8?

There's no connection between EVF brightness and camera shake. Its that Canon offers IBIS on MILCs, but not DSLRs. Also, that doesn't help any with motion blur.



SwissFrank said:


> The fourth reason would be bokeh, but you can get equivalent bokeh with an f/4 or smaller lens, too. Bokeh really comes from the apeture width in mm, not the f/stop. And a 24-105/4 has a 25-26mm aperture wide open at the long end, identical to a 24-70/2.8.


With 100mm, you'll have to either stand farther away, changing perspective, or crop from 70mm, losing ~50% of the pixels.

Don't get me wrong, with today's sensors, one can often get away with throwing that much. I share photos from family events at 3MP (the golden balance between people complaining photos look pixelated when printed 5" by 7" and people complaining it takes too long to download). Point is there are some photographers, e.g. the type that comes to this site, that would object to throwing that many pixels.


----------



## Billybob (Feb 27, 2021)

Bokeh is not synonymous with blur. While this is obvious to just about everyone reading it, the point isn't to just maximize blur, but to get the highest quality blur. Although there is a clear correlation between large aperture and blur, just having a large aperture for a given focal length doesn't make it the best. Take two different 85mm f/1.4 lenses, say a Canon EF and a Sigma, and the bokeh will differ (I won't opine as to which is better). The 200mm f/2.0 arguably has among the best bokeh, but the RF 85mm 1.2 and Nikon 105mm 1.4 are right there with it. My RF 70-200 f/2.8 produces the most pleasing bokeh I've seen in a zoom lens. The Tamron 70-180 f/2.8 for Sony is purportedly sharper than the RF version, but its bokeh is underwhelming at best. I have both lenses and have basically not touched the Sigma since acquiring the Canon because the difference is that noticeable. I haven't tried the new f/4 version, but from my experience with previous f/4 zooms (multiple 70-200 and 24-105 lenses), there is a difference in rendering that leaves me cold. Sure, these lenses probably look very similar stopped down to f/8, but unless I'm shooting landscapes, I try to keep my aperture at f/5.6 or larger.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Feb 27, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> And when did they release the 24-105/4? I think that was among the 4 initial lenses, no? It was the 24-105/4, 28-70/2, 35/1.8 and 50/1.2, I think. And note: no 2.8 zooms either, so to the extent you're right, Canon's actually agreeing with me: their initial lens release was saying don't get a f/2.8 zoom, get a f/4, and a f/1.2 prime.



That's a bit of a reach there...

Here's my take on it...
24-105/4 is basically a really great kit lens to sell with the camera's... w/o it inflating the price too bad.
28-70/2 is their 'look at what we can do lens'.
50/1.2 was a surpassing of the nifty 50 (IQ, not size).
35/1.8 was showing off an affordable prime (it's not a L).

However, this all factors that you don't have a RF>EF adapter... which was basically included with the camera's for quite some time. Which by default grants access to what the EF has to offer already.

Remember, Canon is trying to sell a system... those that were new into the Canon eco-system, the 'starter' lenses they released was pretty mouth watering... I mean that kit lens it really good. However for those with the EF's (probably those that have their favorite lenses already), can see the wow of the new system, but bring all their lenses along for the transition... so perhaps Canon was banking on those critical of the 2.8's (or any other lens for that matter) would already own some of them or could get access to them?

Also, if the 4's were the 'be all, end all', why did the 2.8 trinity get released first? We only have the 2nd lens of the f4 trinity and the 3rd might make it this year if lucky.



SwissFrank said:


> I'm not going to check the exact release date of the RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS vs. the 70-200/2.8 but the fact is they've released both in the first year or two.



The 2.8 was released over a year ago, where-as the 100-500 was just recently released. This lens in my opinion is not competing with the 2.8 or even the 4 trinity lenses. It is really just to replace the EF 100-400 as another 'we can make it better lens'. However one could also say the 100-500 is also filling a gap until the bigger primes come out (where users want more than the 2 DO's). If you can say the 100-500 is competing with the 70-200/2.8...why even make a f4 variant.

The point of all this is, you seem to be stating that Canon agrees with you... but it is really easy to apply whatever logic fit's your (or even my) thoughts... since what I wrote is just as strong reasoning that contradicts what you put out.


----------



## Billybob (Feb 27, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> It should be clear to all readers that I'm talking about amount of blur, not some judgement as to the niceness of that blur. If you want to go attack people, go attack someone else.


Attack? I thought this was a discussion. I simply added my 2 cents. You gave your opinion, I gave mine. No reason to take it personally.

You started the discussion with the provocative premise that "the age of the 2.8 trinity is past us", and you posit as one of your arguments that "you can get equivalent bokeh with an f/4 or smaller lens". Okay, I won't be pedantic and point out that if you were only referring to the amount of blur, you were misusing the term. But even if you replace "bokeh" with "amount of blur" in your original statement, I'd still assert that blur is not the only reason to purchase a 2.8 lens. The quality of blur matters, and the Canon RF 70-200 f/2.8 has very high quality blur indeed. Opticallimits.com tries to apply an objective standard and they find it superior to all the Sony mount offerings in this range describing the Canon's blur as "almost prime like". The-digital-picture and Dustin Abbott also praise the quality--not just the amount--of the 2.8 zoom's blur. 

So, for many of us who either don't have the best primes or prefer the flexibility of a zoom, the f/4 zooms won't replace 2.8 zooms anytime soon just on the basis of bokeh--not just lens blur. If you don't care about bokeh--and lens blur regardless of what it looks like is fine for you--then by all means save your money and get f/4 primes. I respect that, and I'm sorry you perceived my contribution to this discussion as an attack.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Feb 28, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> I agree to most of what you say here but I wouldn't call the 24-105/4LIS a "kit lens," implying a lens good enough to let a first-time buyer get at least a taste of photography before they save up for a real lens. Unlike the EF MkI, it's sharp enough for most usage. Unlike the EF MkII, it's small enough for most usage. Unlike the f/2.8's, it has wide enough range for most usage. Unlike non-L glass it's sturdy enough for pro use. Unlike smaller-aperture glass, its 25mm aperture (at 100mm f/4) gets enough bokeh to make your subject pop, when that's what you need. Unlike non-IS lenses, it can work well in very dark environments. (Subject motion, yes, not ideal, but in terms of camera shake and grain, it's gold.)



Don't get me wrong, the 24-105/4 is a very good lens, but I called it 'kit lens' by definition alone... being that it's a lens you buy factory bundled with the camera body (in the same box). Granted there are non-L's available as a kit lenses too, but IIRC this lens was the default kit lens for the R... and is currently the only one for the R5/R6. Only later did they start packing the non-L 24-105 and the 24-240 as a cheaper kit. Also, It is probably the best kit lens I've seen, but ironically on your point on what 'kit' implies... I literally thought exactly that, in that the f4 was 'good enough' until I saved (more like waited for a sale) for the 2.8's. Disclaimer... I originally went for the 28-70/2 & 70-200/2.8 as the replacements, but the f2 was too unwieldly, so I went with the 24-70/2.8 instead.

I had the 24-105/4 and sold it. After filling out my 'first-choice' lenses, I may get it again as a versatile, light-weight walk-around (if it's on a good enough sale)... but it is not the be-all/end-all that you are making it out to be.



SwissFrank said:


> You know, of the people arguing that I'm wrong and that f/2.8 continues to have a role, not a single one is posting a photo taken at f/2.8 and explaining how it couldn't have been taken at f/4, how the resulting increased DOF or increased noise, or some failure of AF, simply makes the shot not work at f/4+. (In contrast, half the photos shot wide-open with fast primes are inarguably different than what could be achieved with even an f/2.8 zoom. So while the argument for 50/1.2, 35/1.0 and 135/1.4 is still there, I'm happy to double down that there just is no longer any argument for f/2.8 trinity.



I will never look down on anyone that says a particular lens is the best for them... however claiming the f4's are superior to the f2.8's as a blanket statement is flat out wrong. The 2.8's are superior in all aspects except size/weight/cost when compared to the f4's at the same focal length. All you have to do is look at any of the many reviews to see that. Also you can't fake out 1 full stop of light (however the R series does a great job with less light... but again 1 stop less, is still 1 less). However... I can pretty much assure you that no one here would disagree with you if your statement was 'the f4's are superior to the 2.8's _for your use_'.

For reference, I was once in your camp... and thought the 24-105/4 was great when paired with primes (specifically I paired it with the 50/1.2), actually I still think it is. But I found with the 2.8, I don't really need to pack the primes for most situations I go to. Or if I do, I do something like 50/1.2 + 70-200/2.8 so I'm not carrying around 2 lenses in the same focal range unless absolutely needed.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Feb 28, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> I think the age of the f/2.8 trinity is past us.
> 
> It used to be necessary for AF, so we could see a bright image in the viewfinder, and so we could shoot fast enough to avoid camera shake blur.
> 
> ...



You still need the 2.8 aperture for indoor events like sports and concerts where ISO can go way to into 10 000s easily with moving subjects.
But i agree that for most things the F4 is more than enough.


----------



## docsmith (Feb 28, 2021)

Was this thread ever on the rails???? 

Overall, the RF 70-200 f/4 looks amazing. If Canon comes out with a small/light RF 24-70 f/4 or maybe RF 15-35 f/4, I can see picking up either of those and the RF70-200 f/4 and having an exceptional light weight travel oriented kit. Even with my f/1.4 primes, I often drop down to f/4-f/5.6 for DOF issues. The blur is often very attractive as long as I pay attention to various distances. If I have a light/small capable standard kit, as I transition to RF glass, I could see focusing more on primes or heavy glass like the 28-70 f/2 for "when I want them glass." 

But, this is where I think I will stay with EF glass for a while longer. I am not sure how I want to construct my RF kit because I am not sure exactly what Canon is going to offer. I have EF zooms and primes that are already a great kit. For now, I take pictures with my R5 and EF glass and wonder which RF lens will be my first.


----------



## Billybob (Feb 28, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> Oh contraire. Bokeh, though a verb in Japanese, not an adjective, literally means to be blurry, foggy, misty. To the extent bokeh is used as short for bokeh-aji, that term basically means type or flavor of bokeh, not some impossible-to-metric scale of "how good" the blurriness looks. (For instance you might note that the bokeh-aji is smooth or jagged, or swirls around the midpoint of the photo.)
> 
> I've been fluent enough in Japanese to read a newspaper for like 30 years, so I'm not the guy you want to nitpick the meaning of Japanese words with. Why are you spending your time attacking fellow group members instead of talking cameras? Even if your insult was correct--it's not--I don't post in this group to be personally attacked. It's kind of depressing to think that you've got the time and will to do so.


Now you're just being silly (and note, I'm criticizing your response not you, so don't misinterpret this as a personal attack). 

This is an English language website, so using terms borrowed from foreign languages employs their anglicized meaning rather than the original meaning in their native tongue. 

While your lesson in etymology is appreciated, the common usage of bokeh in the English language is in reference to the quality of the blur, not to the amount. 

Merriam-Webster defines it as:
"the blurred _*quality*_ or effect seen in the out-of-focus portion of a photograph taken..."

My Mac dictionary is even clearer:
"the _*visual quality*_ of the out-of-focus areas of a photographic image, especially as rendered by a particular lens" 

Emphasis added in both cases. But this is common knowledge and hardly controversial. That you suckered me in to responding to your absurd premise, is a testament to your argumentative skills. 

Thus, as a previous poster stated, this thread is so far off the rail that I'll make my exit. I don't need to prove f/2.8 zooms are better. You don't need to prove that f/4 zooms are better. Many are in your camp seeing no value to spending the extremely high markup for the faster zooms. There are many, probably fewer, who believe f/2.8 zooms are essential to their work. What matters is not being right, but getting and enjoying the kit that is right for you. 

Good day sir.


----------



## Billybob (Feb 28, 2021)

Never say never. I just want to make one more comment. 

I think someone mentioned this before, but it bares repeating. The 2.8 zooms are better optically in almost every way than their 4.0 counterparts. This is true for the 70-200 siblings. I went to TDP and looked at the review of the new f/4 zoom. Stopping down the 2.8 to 4.0 produces sharper images at every focal length, with less CA and less vignetting. So, the old truism holds here that a lens stopped down is usually better than a lens wide open. Thus, if you value that extra bit of IQ, you'll get it with 2.8 zooms (definitely in the case of 70-200 zooms). 

70-200: f/4 versus f/2.8 IQ from TDP


----------



## Bdbtoys (Feb 28, 2021)

I figured I would comment on the review itself, rather than get caught up in side discussions. I like what the 70-200/4 has to offer and felt this review was pretty informative and actually spot on with what I suspected. It will most likely earn a spot in my collection... at some point (just not yet, partially because I already have the 2.8).

Here were my 2 biggest takeaway's directly quoted from the review (when compared to the f2.8), which I don't think is a surprise to most here.
"If the size, weight, and price differences are not an issue, get the f/2.8 lens. Otherwise, the F4 lens has your name on it."
"The ideal kit will include both lenses, as I mentioned at the beginning of this review."


----------



## jd7 (Feb 28, 2021)

Billybob said:


> Bokeh is not synonymous with blur. While this is obvious to just about everyone reading it, the point isn't to just maximize blur, but to get the highest quality blur. Although there is a clear correlation between large aperture and blur, just having a large aperture for a given focal length doesn't make it the best. Take two different 85mm f/1.4 lenses, say a Canon EF and a Sigma, and the bokeh will differ (I won't opine as to which is better). The 200mm f/2.0 arguably has among the best bokeh, but the RF 85mm 1.2 and Nikon 105mm 1.4 are right there with it. My RF 70-200 f/2.8 produces the most pleasing bokeh I've seen in a zoom lens. The Sigma 70-180 f/2.8 for Sony is purportedly sharper than the RF version, but its bokeh is underwhelming at best. I have both lenses and have basically not touched the Sigma since acquiring the Canon because the difference is that noticeable. I haven't tried the new f/4 version, but from my experience with previous f/4 zooms (multiple 70-200 and 24-105 lenses), there is a difference in rendering that leaves me cold. Sure, these lenses probably look very similar stopped down to f/8, but unless I'm shooting landscapes, I try to keep my aperture at f/5.6 or larger.


Errrr ... there is no Sigma 70-180 f/2.8 for Sony. Do you mean the Tamron 70-180 f/2.8? I haven't used that Tamron myself, but I thought it was meant to have pretty good bokeh ...? Assuming you meant the Tamron lens, I gather you do not agree about its bokeh!

+1 to the part in red! Athough the word "bokeh" is so often misused as a synonym for blur that I guess maybe its meaning will end up changing so it really does just mean blur. (I am referring to the meaning of the word in English, of course, not Japanese.)


----------



## Billybob (Mar 1, 2021)

jd7 said:


> Errrr ... there is no Sigma 70-180 f/2.8 for Sony. Do you mean the Tamron 70-180 f/2.8? I haven't used that Tamron myself, but I thought it was meant to have pretty good bokeh ...? Assuming you meant the Tamron lens, I gather you do not agree about its bokeh!
> 
> +1 to the part in red! Athough the word "bokeh" is so often misused as a synonym for blur that I guess may its meaning will end up changing so it really does just mean blur. (I am referring to the meaning of the word in English, of course, not Japanese.)


Yes, you are correct, I meant the Tamron 70-180 (I've corrected my error in the original post to avoid confusing future readers). I guess some elements of bokeh are subjective, but compared to the RF 70-200--I have both lenses--the Tamron's bokeh is clearly inferior. Maybe that's not a major criticism considering how good is the bokeh produced by the Canon, but opticallimits.com also found issues with the Tamron bokeh observing significant "onion ringing" and outlining in bokeh balls. Of course it's hard to be worst than the bokeh on the Nikon 24-85 G lens. Yes, there was plenty of blur, but it was absolutely hideous.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 1, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> Why are you spending your time attacking fellow group members instead of talking cameras? Even if your insult was correct--it's not--I don't post in this group to be personally attacked. It's kind of depressing to think that you've got the time and will to do so.


OMG.... just face it, you lost the election, by a lot. Bigly. Keep repeating you were being attacked. You weren’t.

oh, wait... wrong dude. Sorta.


----------



## jd7 (Mar 1, 2021)

Billybob said:


> Yes, you are correct, I meant the Tamron 70-180 (I've corrected my error in the original post to avoid confusing future readers). I guess some elements of bokeh are subjective, but compared to the RF 70-200--I have both lenses--the Tamron's bokeh is clearly inferior. Maybe that's not a major criticism considering how good is the bokeh produced by the Canon, but opticallimits.com also found issues with the Tamron bokeh observing significant "onion ringing" and outlining in bokeh balls. Of course it's hard to be worst than the bokeh on the Nikon 24-85 G lens. Yes, there was plenty of blur, but it was absolutely hideous.


I have read plenty of people singing the praises of the bokeh of the RF 70-200, so you certainly aren't alone in that regard (and I've liked the samples I've seen). I've generally heard good things about the Tamron lens too though (including its bokeh), and obviously the price of the Tamron adds to its appeal, but interesting you like the bokeh of the Canon so much more. Hopefully I will get a chance to try both lenses for myself sometime and see what I think. Of course, it would be more relevant to me if I'd made the move to a mirrorless camera


----------



## PBG (Mar 1, 2021)

docsmith said:


> Overall, the RF 70-200 f/4 looks amazing. If Canon comes out with a small/light RF 24-70 f/4 or maybe RF 15-35 f/4, I can see picking up either of those and the RF70-200 f/4 and having an exceptional light weight travel oriented kit. Even with my f/1.4 primes, I often drop down to f/4-f/5.6 for DOF issues. The blur is often very attractive as long as I pay attention to various distances. If I have a light/small capable standard kit, as I transition to RF glass, I could see focusing more on primes or heavy glass like the 28-70 f/2 for "when I want them glass."
> 
> But, this is where I think I will stay with EF glass for a while longer. I am not sure how I want to construct my RF kit because I am not sure exactly what Canon is going to offer. I have EF zooms and primes that are already a great kit. For now, I take pictures with my R5 and EF glass and wonder which RF lens will be my first.


This is where I was. My EF kit with R6 was 24/2.8 IS, 40 pancake, and 100L Macro. Just got the RF 70-200/4 yesterday and it's marvelous. 

Hoping for a 24-70/4 to pair it with, and down the line perhaps RF 50/1.4 and a 24 (as long as they have good USM AF).


----------



## vangelismm (Mar 2, 2021)

Billybob said:


> Never say never. I just want to make one more comment.
> 
> I think someone mentioned this before, but it bares repeating. The 2.8 zooms are better optically in almost every way than their 4.0 counterparts. This is true for the 70-200 siblings. I went to TDP and looked at the review of the new f/4 zoom. Stopping down the 2.8 to 4.0 produces sharper images at every focal length, with less CA and less vignetting. So, the old truism holds here that a lens stopped down is usually better than a lens wide open. Thus, if you value that extra bit of IQ, you'll get it with 2.8 zooms (definitely in the case of 70-200 zooms).
> 
> 70-200: f/4 versus f/2.8 IQ from TDP


True, but as always, depends on user case.
Landscape photographer would shoot both stopped down to f/8, f/11 where this IQ advantage is dismissed.


----------



## dilbert (Mar 2, 2021)

Where is the RF 70-300L?

Who wants one of those? Anyone with a RF 70-200/f4L that wants a bit more zoom and can't use the rf extender...


----------



## Billybob (Mar 2, 2021)

vangelismm said:


> True, but as always, depends on user case.
> Landscape photographer would shoot both stopped down to f/8, f/11 where this IQ advantage is dismissed.


No, what I stated wasn't conditional. My conclusion was that if you value the extra bit of IQ at 2.8 and 4.0, then you will prefer the 2.8 zoom over the 4.0 zoom. I agree with you that there often isn't much difference stopping these lenses down to f/8 or smaller apertures. If so--if you're a photographer who always shoots at f/8 and smaller apertures--then you are almost certainly not in the category that values better IQ at larger apertures. Thus, photogs who do value that better IQ have to decide whether it makes sense to pay the extortionary markup for 2.8 or whether they are okay purchasing the more affordable 4.0 lens with modestly lower IQ and reduced bulk.


----------



## stevelee (Mar 2, 2021)

Bdbtoys said:


> Don't get me wrong, the 24-105/4 is a very good lens, but I called it 'kit lens' by definition alone... being that it's a lens you buy factory bundled with the camera body (in the same box). Granted there are non-L's available as a kit lenses too, but IIRC this lens was the default kit lens for the R... and is currently the only one for the R5/R6. Only later did they start packing the non-L 24-105 and the 24-240 as a cheaper kit. Also, It is probably the best kit lens I've seen, but ironically on your point on what 'kit' implies... I literally thought exactly that, in that the f4 was 'good enough' until I saved (more like waited for a sale) for the 2.8's. Disclaimer... I originally went for the 28-70/2 & 70-200/2.8 as the replacements, but the f2 was too unwieldly, so I went with the 24-70/2.8 instead.
> 
> I had the 24-105/4 and sold it. After filling out my 'first-choice' lenses, I may get it again as a versatile, light-weight walk-around (if it's on a good enough sale)... but it is not the be-all/end-all that you are making it out to be.
> 
> ...


When I bought the 6D2, I chose the STM lens as my kit lens. I figured it would be good enough to hold me until I decided what lenses I wanted to buy. I have been very pleasantly surprised with the quality and usefulness. It is now the vin ordinaire for my shooting. To the primes I already had, I added the 100–400mm II and the 16–35mm f/4 zooms and a refurb 85 f/1.8. At this point, I wouldn't miss the extra $300 in my checking account because I didn't get the L kit lens, but I can't say I regret the choice. It doesn't inspire me to a GAS attack, and I haven't taken a picture with it that lead me to wish it had been a better lens.

As for the discussion of bucket (I prefer the "Keeping Up Appearances" spelling), I think the best is the one that does call attention to itself and distract from the subject. When I look at a nearby person, I'm aware that there are things behind her that are out of focus, but I'm not assaulted by the cat's-eye shaped lights or even a creamy blurriness. Those things are fine as special effects, and that is the statement you want to make. But usually I just want the background blur to look natural and if anything add to the general atmosphere. I guess I am not a photographer's photographer, wanting mainly impress people with my lens collection.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Mar 2, 2021)

@stevelee I have to admit, I'm a bit lost why you quoted my post. Seems like we are talking about 2 different things... especially if read in the context of what I was responding to (which is left out of a double quote).


----------



## stevelee (Mar 3, 2021)

Bdbtoys said:


> @stevelee I have to admit, I'm a bit lost why you quoted my post. Seems like we are talking about 2 different things... especially if read in the context of what I was responding to (which is left out of a double quote).


My first paragraph was in response to your “kit lens” discussion. The second paragraph dealt with the more general discussion about f/2.8 vs f/4 lenses and the need for additional blurriness, and was not a reply directly to a specific thing you said.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Mar 3, 2021)

stevelee said:


> My first paragraph was in response to your “kit lens” discussion. The second paragraph dealt with the more general discussion about f/2.8 vs f/4 lenses and the need for additional blurriness, and was not a reply directly to a specific thing you said.



Gotcha... Note however, my original 'kit lens' reply was not to undermine the lens... but to explain why I called it a kit lens.

I was super happy w/ a EF-S 24-135 STM kit lens for the longest time when I was using a 70D.


----------



## stevelee (Mar 3, 2021)

Bdbtoys said:


> Gotcha... Note however, my original 'kit lens' reply was not to undermine the lens... but to explain why I called it a kit lens.
> 
> I was super happy w/ a EF-S 24-135 STM kit lens for the longest time when I was using a 70D.


It sounds like I didn’t make it clear enough that I was agreeing with you, and adding that you don’t even have to go all the way with the L lens. There have been enough crummy kit lenses to give them a bad name. But recent EF 24-105mm kits lenses have been fine.


----------

