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, smooth-functioning rings, crisp switches, and tight tolerances make this lens a pleasure to use. Read the full review
Stock levels for this lens are still relatively low, but you should be able to find one at smaller retailers.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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!)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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