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



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 16, 2021)

> Gordan Laing from CameraLabs has completed his review of the Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM, in which he compares it directly to the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM II and the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM. I mean, you’re comparing 3 amazing lenses against each other, you can’t lose.
> From CameraLabs
> What makes the RF lens really special though is its size, little larger than a 330ml can when zoomed to 70mm and considerably more portable than the EF version, particularly when the adapter’s fitted for EOS R bodies. The extending barrel is a double-edged sword though as it’s way too soon to know about long-term sealing. Like the RF 2.8 version, the optical design sadly rules out the use of RF teleconverters and also results in significant focus breathing where the magnification reduces at...



Continue reading...


----------



## amorse (Feb 16, 2021)

I really like his reviews. He always seems to take a sober look what he's testing without getting too caught up in hype.


----------



## Del Paso (Feb 16, 2021)

No extender?
No buy!
(I'll keep the EF...)
Yet, sometimes, an ultra compact telezoom would be nice.
Maybe I'll get one someday.
Edit: I certainly will. Soon.


----------



## festr (Feb 16, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> No extender?
> No buy!
> (I'll keep the EF...)
> Yet, sometimes, an ultra compact telezoom would be nice.
> ...


the F2.8 version is so small that I can afford to bring it with me all time.


----------



## IcyBergs (Feb 16, 2021)

I like the review, but.....

What portrait and/or event photog is going to opt for f4 over f2.8? 

Not many I imagine.


----------



## deleteme (Feb 16, 2021)

IcyBergs said:


> I like the review, but.....
> 
> What portrait and/or event photog is going to opt for f4 over f2.8?
> 
> Not many I imagine.


As a portrait photographer I use f4 almost all the time on my 70-200 2.8 because the last little bit of OOF BG is not worth the annoyance of a focus miss on the end of a nose as opposed to the eyes. Wiht the R5 I know this is not much of an issue compared to the DSLR cameras.

I often use f4 and even 5.6 for events on stage where bright lighting is present.
Weddings are the venue where a fast zoom would be welcome but even now we can get a way with a bump in ISO and the excellent IBIS now available to us. The lighter weight would actually be very welcome for someone on their feet with a lot of gear.


----------



## bbasiaga (Feb 16, 2021)

IcyBergs said:


> I like the review, but.....
> 
> What portrait and/or event photog is going to opt for f4 over f2.8?
> 
> Not many I imagine.


Studio portraits or portraits using lots of flash/strobe are often shot at smaller apertures in order to better control ambient light. Subject separation is handled with the lighting and choice of background. 

But I see this lens as more of a travel lens, despite its ability to be used in studio. And that is where it has its most attraction for me. So small and light. 

Gordon's review on youtube seemed more positive than I read the comment clipped above. IQ wise its a wash with the EF version, but AF wise it is faster. So if you're going to upgrade, you'll do it on the size. If you don't have one, you've got a choice to make to trade off the cost for the larger size plus adapter, or go with the native. 

I'm torn, as I have the V1 EF version and have always liked it. But when I ultimately upgrade to an R body this will call to me. I could also instead upgrade to the EF 2.8 V2 or 3 for about the same price. Just not sure I'd really benefit much from the 2.8 for a travel/walk around lens. 

-Brian


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 16, 2021)

bbasiaga said:


> Studio portraits or portraits using lots of flash/strobe are often shot at smaller apertures in order to better control ambient light. Subject separation is handled with the lighting and choice of background.
> 
> But I see this lens as more of a travel lens, despite its ability to be used in studio. And that is where it has its most attraction for me. So small and light.
> 
> ...


Canon definitely had a different strategy for its RF 70-200s than what it had with EF or what Nikon has done with with its Z 70-200. Gone are compatibility with extenders and constant length, and instead what Canon produced were variable length lenses that are compact and lighter. I think I like the tradeoff that Canon made. Even with the EF variants, I rarely used extenders with the 70-200s. If I needed more reach, I chose the 100-400.

I do think that the RF versions of the 70-200s may have effectively killed off the 70-300L. The 70-300L's advantage was a shorter package than the fixed length 70-200s, and with the RF 70-200 f/4 as small and light as it is, I'm not sure there is a big market for a 70-300L for RF, which may be why there are rumors of a non-L 100-400.


----------



## Tirmite (Feb 16, 2021)

Good review. I miss the old days, though, when people -especially writers/journalists- knew how to use the English language.
“...focuses twice as close as...” The correct terminology is: FOCUSES HALF AS CLOSE. It’s insulting to assume readers are too stupid and we can’t figure it out. Or are fractions really that difficult for otherwise smart writers to comprehend? What happened to our education system? Same goes for when you hear a commercial for a “3 Times” zoom lens (3X). It’s called a 3 Power lens. X refers to power, not “times”.


----------



## GreenViper (Feb 16, 2021)

Good review, fair and balanced. Can't quibble with any of his observations.

Have mine on order - looking forward to size and weight. Planning on using it as the alternative lens in my 2 lens/camera set ups - 16-35F4 & 70-200F4 for landscapes & 400 DO II or 100-400 and 70-200 for wildlife. I'd have gone for the 70-200 F2.8 if I was still doing indoor sports and I have the 85 F2 for occasional portraits so the F4 fits my use case perfectly. Suspect it'll be a step up from my 70-200 F4 non-IS which was my first L lens back in the day.


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 16, 2021)

IcyBergs said:


> I like the review, but.....
> 
> What portrait and/or event photog is going to opt for f4 over f2.8?



All of those who can’t afford a 2.8?


----------



## IcyBergs (Feb 16, 2021)

Normalnorm said:


> As a portrait photographer I use f4 almost all the time on my 70-200 2.8 because the last little bit of OOF BG is not worth the annoyance of a focus miss on the end of a nose as opposed to the eyes. Wiht the R5 I know this is not much of an issue compared to the DSLR cameras.
> 
> I often use f4 and even 5.6 for events on stage where bright lighting is present.
> Weddings are the venue where a fast zoom would be welcome but even now we can get a way with a bump in ISO and the excellent IBIS now available to us. The lighter weight would actually be very welcome for someone on their feet with a lot of gear.


I didn't say those photogs wouldn't use smaller apertures, just said they'd probably buy the 2.8. And after reading this anecdote, it appears you've confirmed my suspicions. Especially the part where you say "my 70-200 2.8"


----------



## IcyBergs (Feb 16, 2021)

Sharlin said:


> All of those who can’t afford a 2.8?


Agreed, but if they had their druthers?


----------



## stevelee (Feb 16, 2021)

Tirmite said:


> “...focuses twice as close as...” The correct terminology is: FOCUSES HALF AS CLOSE. It’s insulting to assume readers are too stupid and we can’t figure it out.


I don’t think either expression is particularly logical, so better just rephrased. But I suspect people can figure out what he means.

Neither is as bad as “It is half as cold today as it was yesterday.”


----------



## stevelee (Feb 16, 2021)

For studio work, might one not prefer a prime lens?

Size and weight are lesser concerns in the studio, as is price if you are making enough money with it over time. The extra stop would be of less value for studio portraits, I’d assume.


----------



## Act444 (Feb 16, 2021)

Random Orbits said:


> I do think that the RF versions of the 70-200s may have effectively killed off the 70-300L. The 70-300L's advantage was a shorter package than the fixed length 70-200s, and with the RF 70-200 f/4 as small and light as it is, I'm not sure there is a big market for a 70-300L for RF, which may be why there are rumors of a non-L 100-400.


I sure hope not. As a user of the 70-300L I opted for that over the 70-200 f4 not because of size, but due to the 100mm extra reach. For indoors/low light, that's what the 70-200 2.8 is for.

In this case, it appears that the f2.8 version would already be compact and light enough (by my standards) for me to not desire the f4 version. I would like to see a 70-300 or 80-400 L-class lens in the same size category, personally.


----------



## SteveC (Feb 17, 2021)

stevelee said:


> I don’t think either expression is particularly logical, so better just rephrased. But I suspect people can figure out what he means.
> 
> Neither is as bad as “It is half as cold today as it was yesterday.”



what do those people do when it's 10 one day and -5 the next? (Question exists whether you use Celsius or Fahrenheit, but not if you use Kelvins.)


----------



## Treyarnon (Feb 17, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> No extender?
> No buy!
> (I'll keep the EF...)
> Yet, sometimes, an ultra compact telezoom would be nice.
> ...


With a (45MP) R5, you won't need an extender -> you will get better results by simply cropping.

R6 will be a different matter though.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 17, 2021)

Maybe I missed it but he hasn't covered vignetting, chromatic aberrations and distortion at all. Strong vignetting is a weak point of some of the new RF lenses.


----------



## Surab (Feb 17, 2021)

I think I'm too much of an amateur to see the appeal in a 70-200 F4: It's still kinda expensive, not crazy fast, and doesn't have much reach. But again that's on me really.



Tirmite said:


> Same goes for when you hear a commercial for a “3 Times” zoom lens (3X). It’s called a 3 Power lens. X refers to power, not “times”.



I can't tell if this is sarcasm.


----------



## Tangent (Feb 17, 2021)

Damien Bernal covers the vignetting at 200. Good review, en Francais, but the the pictures tell the story. About 8 minutes in. C'est la vie.

Overall he is also very positive about the RF f4. If my French is not misleading me.


----------



## HMC11 (Feb 17, 2021)

GreenViper said:


> Good review, fair and balanced. Can't quibble with any of his observations.
> 
> Have mine on order - looking forward to size and weight. Planning on using it as the alternative lens in my 2 lens/camera set ups - 16-35F4 & 70-200F4 for landscapes & 400 DO II or 100-400 and 70-200 for wildlife. I'd have gone for the 70-200 F2.8 if I was still doing indoor sports and I have the 85 F2 for occasional portraits so the F4 fits my use case perfectly. Suspect it'll be a step up from my 70-200 F4 non-IS which was my first L lens back in the day.



I have pretty similar considerations for travel, but would probably pair a 15-35 f4 with the 70-200 f2.8 instead. While this combination is about 400g heavier and that the f2.8 is bigger, it allows for portrait shots of family members (which is essentially a 'requirement' ). This would save having to carry a 85 f2 prime. Besides, based on Gordon Laing's review, it looks like the 2.8 produces a shade better overall IQ at the same aperture.


----------



## Antono Refa (Feb 17, 2021)

Random Orbits said:


> Canon definitely had a different strategy for its RF 70-200s than what it had with EF or what Nikon has done with with its Z 70-200. Gone are compatibility with extenders and constant length, and instead what Canon produced were variable length lenses that are compact and lighter. I think I like the tradeoff that Canon made. Even with the EF variants, I rarely used extenders with the 70-200s. If I needed more reach, I chose the 100-400.


I don't use >200mm often enough to justify spending >$2,000 on another white lens. Moving to Nikon Z looks that much more attractive.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Feb 17, 2021)

Gordan Laing makes good videos. He is not the guy with steroids as other "photographers" flooding early reviews of new stuff...
But everyone has the audience....


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (Feb 17, 2021)

Tangent said:


> Damien Bernal covers the vignetting at 200. Good review, en Francais, but the the pictures tell the story. About 8 minutes in. C'est la vie.
> 
> Overall he is also very positive about the RF f4. If my French is not misleading me.


Right, he especially points out better ergonomics than on the F/2.8 version (better rings arrangement, in his opinion). Vignette looks better on the F/4 version. Stabilization is also a tad better. He didn't find any significant optical difference at comparable focal length + aperture in normal conditions. Colors are a bit warmer on the F/2.8.
The F/4 version's bokeh may be a tad more "nervous". And flare is a bit more present too.
Fot the rest, to him, it's mainly a question of price/size/weight/usage of F/2.8 aperture, which is quite a similar conclusion to the one of the guy at CameraLabs.

Cheers


----------



## Daner (Feb 17, 2021)

For me, I suspect that buying the RF 70-200 f/4L would be a sure-fire way to get a variety of indoor sports assignments that would be better-served by the f/2.8.


----------



## SteveC (Feb 17, 2021)

Daner said:


> For me, I suspect that buying the RF 70-200 f/4L would be a sure-fire way to get a variety of indoor sports assignments that would be better-served by the f/2.8.



Oh, Murphy's Law works for you too then?


----------



## stevelee (Feb 17, 2021)

HMC11 said:


> I have pretty similar considerations for travel, but would probably pair a 15-35 f4 with the 70-200 f2.8 instead. While this combination is about 400g heavier and that the f2.8 is bigger, it allows for portrait shots of family members (which is essentially a 'requirement' ). This would save having to carry a 85 f2 prime. Besides, based on Gordon Laing's review, it looks like the 2.8 produces a shade better overall IQ at the same aperture.


But in travel pictures of family, don't you want the locale to be obvious rather than a blur? Or did you just mean that you'd use the camera at home for portraits as double duty? In that case, for a lot less money, you could get the f/4 zoom and some prime lens for portraits, one that opens wider than f/2.8.


----------



## HMC11 (Feb 18, 2021)

stevelee said:


> But in travel pictures of family, don't you want the locale to be obvious rather than a blur? Or did you just mean that you'd use the camera at home for portraits as double duty? In that case, for a lot less money, you could get the f/4 zoom and some prime lens for portraits, one that opens wider than f/2.8.


An F2.8 allows for the option to have nicer bokeh. To capture a sharper background, it is possible to stop down, and/or focus at the hyperfocal distance.


----------



## stevelee (Feb 18, 2021)

HMC11 said:


> An F2.8 allows for the option to have nicer bokeh. To capture a sharper background, it is possible to stop down, and/or focus at the hyperfocal distance.


And you might get even nicer bokeh with the cheap f/1.8 prime.


----------



## mkamelg (Feb 18, 2021)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Maybe I missed it but he hasn't covered vignetting, chromatic aberrations and distortion at all. Strong vignetting is a weak point of some of the new RF lenses.


If you and others want to know almost everything about this lens, take a look at the review published on the South Korean portal popco.net. In my opinion, they make the best lens reviews in the Internet outside of YouTube. I used Google translator to translate the headings of the individual pages from Korean to English.

1.디자인&조작 (Design & operation)

2.렌즈 활용&촬영 (Lens utilization & shooting)

3.해상력&광학 성능 (Resolution & optical performance)

4. 원본 샘플 (Original sample)


----------



## HMC11 (Feb 18, 2021)

stevelee said:


> And you might get even nicer bokeh with the cheap f/1.8 prime.


While that could be true, an image depends on more than just bokeh. I have compared the 85 f1.2 with the 85 f2, and found that I prefer the overall rendering of the former. I guess a good photographer would be able to use the latter such that images from it would appeal as much as those from the f1.2 to most people; but, alas, I am not so good and only sort of improving incrementally. Besides, I was trying to find a good travel combo, and would prefer 2 zooms without having to bring along a prime - not so much the weight, but trying to keep lens switching to a minimum.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 18, 2021)

amorse said:


> I really like his reviews. He always seems to take a sober look what he's testing without getting too caught up in hype.



Good and fair review; horses 4 courses on this one. For £1600 option is to pick up the compact F4 70-200 (bearing in mind no TC can be used with it) vs the excellent sharp EF MK 2 70-200 F4 £1200 which can use EF TC's extending range of lens to 98-280 F5.6 or 200 -400 F8.


----------



## stevelee (Feb 18, 2021)

HMC11 said:


> While that could be true, an image depends on more than just bokeh. I have compared the 85 f1.2 with the 85 f2, and found that I prefer the overall rendering of the former. I guess a good photographer would be able to use the latter such that images from it would appeal as much as those from the f1.2 to most people; but, alas, I am not so good and only sort of improving incrementally. Besides, I was trying to find a good travel combo, and would prefer 2 zooms without having to bring along a prime - not so much the weight, but trying to keep lens switching to a minimum.


I was addressing two things, since I wasn’t sure which you meant. The fast prime was for portraits around home. For travel portraits, which I see as a positive alternative to selfies, isn’t the point that it shows that the person is at this remote/beautiful/exotic spot? In that case blurring out the beach/volcano/mountain seems to be counterproductive, and thus calling for stopping down.


----------



## HMC11 (Feb 19, 2021)

stevelee said:


> I was addressing two things, since I wasn’t sure which you meant. The fast prime was for portraits around home. For travel portraits, which I see as a positive alternative to selfies, isn’t the point that it shows that the person is at this remote/beautiful/exotic spot? In that case blurring out the beach/volcano/mountain seems to be counterproductive, and thus calling for stopping down.


It's for travelling. However, blurring out the background for travel photos would be desirable in various situations, particularly at crowded scenic spots where it would be hard to avoid distractions, or when such effects are intended (by me). So having the option to do both would be good for me.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Feb 19, 2021)

[email protected] said:


> .. EF MK 2 70-200 F4 £1200 which can use EF TC's extending range of lens to 98-280 F5.6 or 200 -400 F8.


With the TCs 2x it becomes a 140 - 400mm F8.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Feb 3, 2022)

Unless you are intent on using teleconvertors with a 70-200, I can't find much of a fault with this lens.
I've owned 3 other EF iterations and this is the finest in terms of distortion, corner to corner sharpness, rendering (true, bokeh is a bit nervous) and micro contrast. Then there are the physical attributes which all earn top marks. 

This has bested the 135L as my favorite lens from Canon. Never thought it would happen.


----------



## bluenoser1993 (Nov 1, 2022)

bbasiaga said:


> But I see this lens as more of a travel lens, despite its ability to be used in studio. And that is where it has its most attraction for me. So small and light.
> -Brian



I agree to this point. On a trip to Europe this summer I used the RF24-105L for walking around. When I checked in Lightroom I discovered images between 35-70mm were less than 5% and typically I wished I had more wide angle than 24mm and often 105mm was not enough. With the 70-200 f4 being so small (not much different than 24-105 retracted) combined with a 14-35mm f4 in my shoulder bag would have worked out better. When I check my entire library, 35-70 falls under 1.5%, but that is partly because EF100-400 II is my most used lens and at high frame rates for outdoor water sports my kids are involved in. I’m almost convinced, but to justify it I need to sell the 24-105 because I try to keep a cap on total lenses since it’s a hobby only.


----------

