I'm primarily focused on using the 70-200 for sports, and I feel crazy, but does the throw distance on the RF bother anyone else? Or bother enough to not get it? I rented it, and am surprised at how noticeable it is. And how stiff the zoom is as well as ring dampening. I understand this was all necessary with the new telescoping design, but am shocked its barely a footnote in most reviews. Anyone shooting sports with the RF version and think you get used it?
Prefer EF 70-200 f2.8 Over RF, Am I Crazy?
- Thread starter SHAMwow
- Start date
I never had the EF version, however I definitely like the smaller form factor of the RF when at 70. The lens is so easy to carry around or put in a bag as it's not much bigger than the 24-70.
If you have an EF mount DSLR camera or really want to use a TC on it, I could see going for the EF... else the RF really is a no brainer if solely using on R bodies..
If you have an EF mount DSLR camera or really want to use a TC on it, I could see going for the EF... else the RF really is a no brainer if solely using on R bodies..
Upvote
0
There are some tradeoffs as always with every design. Personally I kept the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, and I use the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS when I want something lighter - it is more similar in design and weight to the RF 70-200 - plus that one gives me the benefit of 300mm obviously.
Upvote
0
Many people used the non-telescoping zoom as a reason they preferred the EF 70-200 f/2.8L and f/4L over the 70-300 f/4-5.6L. super common sentiment
So whether or not people are saying it now because this RF lens is the new thing and the only RF option available of this type, yes a lot do agree with you. Personally I use the telescoping ef 70-300 f/4-5.6L for travel when I want to keep the size down, and the non-telescoping ef 70-200 f/2.8L is II for sports/racing when I need fast and precise zoom.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
