Hello I was wondering what people's experience with the EF II/III vs RF 70-200 F2.8L especially on the newer R5 body. Is the AF any better in the RF? Any noticeable IS difference? I already have the EF II version, but with my R5 wondering if it is worth the upgrade or not. I dont care about the weight difference, really focus speed, IQ are my key drivers. Thank you.
EF vs RF 70-200 f2.8L
- Thread starter neurorx
- Start date
The RF has two USM motors instead of one. I already sold all my EF glass (including the 70-200 II), but I'm pretty sure I've seen a video comparing the RF against the EF, and it seemed twice as fast in obtaining focus from an OOF state.
Upvote
0
I just got the RF version for my R5 after six years of beating up the EF IS II version. So far the image stabilization is worlds better, and it does feel like the RF version is more responsive to autofocus. Image quality-wise, I think Canon's sole focus was to reduce weight/size without impacting image quality. The EF II and III were always great lenses already.
I know you already said about the weight, but for me the absolute biggest reason I took the plunge on the RF was its form factor and balance with the R5. I'm just blown away at how much more comfortable the 70-200 is to use. Plenty of scenarios where I would have left a 70-200 at home that I now would definitely bring it with me. I personally hate the handling of an EF 70-200 on an adapter on the RF. It's a long enough lens already, adding the adapter just makes it look longer and more unwieldy. Not a problem to me with the 100-400 or a supertelephoto, since those lenses come out when reach is really a question, but a 70-200 is such an everyday daily-use lens that it really is a great experience using a lens that feels more like a 24-70.
I know you already said about the weight, but for me the absolute biggest reason I took the plunge on the RF was its form factor and balance with the R5. I'm just blown away at how much more comfortable the 70-200 is to use. Plenty of scenarios where I would have left a 70-200 at home that I now would definitely bring it with me. I personally hate the handling of an EF 70-200 on an adapter on the RF. It's a long enough lens already, adding the adapter just makes it look longer and more unwieldy. Not a problem to me with the 100-400 or a supertelephoto, since those lenses come out when reach is really a question, but a 70-200 is such an everyday daily-use lens that it really is a great experience using a lens that feels more like a 24-70.
Upvote
0
The only thing that I dislike about the RF 70-200 is the inability to use an extender with that lens. I just love the flexibility of throwing on a 1.4x when you need a little more reach.
Catherine
Catherine
Upvote
0
Depending on your needs, may be worth checking the manual. I’m not sure the version ii of the EF lens is on the list of supported lenses for 12 FPS mechanical in the “+” mode. Which may mean you are limited to 8 FPS). May be another reason to upgrade.
Upvote
0
Thank you, that is a good point. I need to check that out. I ordered the 28-70 and it seems on backorder indefinitely. With the II, I dont necessarily see the amazing AF that people are claiming for the R5 (its good). I love my 100-400 II, but didnt pre-order the 100-500 as it seems to be a bit more apt to move to the higher F stops than the 100-400 per the camera labs review. I had been hoping for a 200-600 6.3 like Sony, but alas not in the cards.
Upvote
0
This isn't the case, just an error in the manual. The EF 70-200 II works fine on my R5, same FPS as the RF 70-200.
Upvote
0
Oh, whaaat... was thinking of (forced) selling my EF 70-200 II. Thank you for saving me at least US$1,500.00.
You wouldn’t have a copy of EF 400/2.8 IS II handy by any chance? The lens isn’t on the 12FPS compatibility table. Just thought it might be in error. It is such a great lens.
Upvote
0
THANK YOU! I was hoping someone would test out and report on other lenses than the ones on the list. I was hoping the EF 70-200 II would work. Fantastic news!
Upvote
0
I was debating this for at least a few months. I did my own side-by-side comparison at the Canon store and ultimately decided to go with the EF III version. I wasn't sold on the RF version being significantly better in any way. Especially not $700 better. The EF just offers more versatility for me. Mine just arrived today, but sadly the only body I have to use it with at the moment is my tiny M3. lol
Upvote
0
My two cents:
All the writers before are IMO right. I do not own the 70-200 II anymore, because I am really really happy with the Rf version. The AF on the RF works faster and the sharpness is - to use an influencer´s term- "mind blowing".
. The IBIS is much better, let your shutter speed come down double the time ans still works great.
There are several reviews out there, where you can imagine the difference. There are a lot influencers out there, I know. But maybe you go on an Canon marketing show where you can lean it for half of an day. Or your rent it from an company for one day.
Believe me, this lens is really extraordinary well gesigned.
I do not say, worth the money - Canon´s prices are incredibly high. Compared to Sony, felt double the price. I hope, the RF mount becomes "free" and we see Sigma lenses too. as they are even sharper.
All the writers before are IMO right. I do not own the 70-200 II anymore, because I am really really happy with the Rf version. The AF on the RF works faster and the sharpness is - to use an influencer´s term- "mind blowing".
. The IBIS is much better, let your shutter speed come down double the time ans still works great.There are several reviews out there, where you can imagine the difference. There are a lot influencers out there, I know. But maybe you go on an Canon marketing show where you can lean it for half of an day. Or your rent it from an company for one day.
Believe me, this lens is really extraordinary well gesigned.
I do not say, worth the money - Canon´s prices are incredibly high. Compared to Sony, felt double the price. I hope, the RF mount becomes "free" and we see Sigma lenses too. as they are even sharper.
Upvote
0
The ergonomics were the deciding factor for me. The EF version with the adapter just didn't balance well on the R, and I had particular trouble keeping the lens as steady as I like when shooting in the portrait orientation. I did not have the same problem with the EF version on the 5DIV at all!
The IQ and AF were fine on the R.
The RF does seem to have slightly better IBIS, and it is very sharp, but it was the handling that pushed me to swap 'em.
The IQ and AF were fine on the R.
The RF does seem to have slightly better IBIS, and it is very sharp, but it was the handling that pushed me to swap 'em.
Upvote
0
I am thinking, after quite a bit of analyzing what I really want and what I like to shoot, I’m going to let the 70 -200 go. Even the RF mount.
I am instead going to go after theRF 100-500. The 70-200 never had quite enough reach– –for me. But I am excited about the RF 100- 500
I am instead going to go after theRF 100-500. The 70-200 never had quite enough reach– –for me. But I am excited about the RF 100- 500
Upvote
0
Similar threads
