Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Canon RF 70-200 f/2.8 Z versus...

  1. #1
    Super Moderator Kayaker72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    5,752

    Canon RF 70-200 f/2.8 Z versus...

    Bryan is already on record calling the Canon RF 70-200 f/2.8 Z the sharpest lens he's ever tested as of the time of the review.

    To give further comparisons to this, I just watched a video from Gordon Liang comparing the RF 70-200 f/2.8 (original), RF 70-200 f/2.8 Z, and RF 100-500. All very sharp lenses.

    The takeaway is both a testament to extenders and the RF 70-200 f/2.8 Z. The quick summation, assessing sharpness/rendered detail:
    • 70-200 Z > Original RF 70-200 > 100-500 at all native equivalent focal lengths
    • 70-200 Z + 1.4xTC > 100-500 at all equivalent focal lengths
    • 70-200 Z + 2xTC ~= to 100-500 at all equivalent focal lengths.
    • Not for nothing, but a nice screen shot of 500 mm, 700 mm equivalent, and 1000 mm equivalent from the 100-500L w/ and w/o extenders showing the benefit of extenders.


    I have been playing with the idea of the RF 70-200 Z to be used with extenders and replace several other lenses (along with the RF 100-300). I haven't pulled the trigger on anything and have no intention too for a while.

    But Gordon's conclusions are a bit more clear than what I have seen in Bryan's data. For example:


    Of course, the 100-500 goes to 500 mm, has 100-500 mm available all at once, and AF speed/accuracy was not tested. On the flip side, the Z with extenders has wider maximum apertures.

    It gets interesting. I am tempted by all three lenses. Yet, I am not having issues with my current kit, so I keep shooting.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Big Mouse Florida
    Posts
    1,203
    Just finishing my Africa trip and the 100-300 was the perfect lens. Too many early a.m./late pm shots to be had for anything slower than a 2.8. Really spent the vast majority of time at 300. Didnt use the 2x tc at all. The 24-105 was at 105 nearly all the time a few wide shots.

    I offer this as an check on reach.
    If you see me with a wrench, call 911

  3. #3
    Senior Member Jonathan Huyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Canmore, Alberta
    Posts
    1,294
    I have the 70-200 f/2.8 Z and I really like it. I haven't given it a 'proper' test as of yet, but that is coming up soon with a bear trip. I really like the light weight and the handling. The zoom is so smooth and quick! It's the exact same size as the 24-105 f/2.8 which is interesting. But it's a lot lighter.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •