For a very long time, I have been struggling with how to position myself in the medium focal length range in the future. Earlier, I’ve always used the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM II, a purchase that gave me back a bit of my love for photography. A lot has changed since then.
My complete switch to the RF bayonet on the camera side gave me the opportunity to consider the really small and damn good Canon RF 70-200mm f/4 as an alternative. On the other hand, I was also increasingly drawn towards fast alternatives, and with the increasing age of the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM II, its price was becoming more and more acceptable on the second-hand market. Of course, the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 would be a dream, but at a price of over €2000, this is simply not justifiable right now.
In the end, I opted for an EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM II at the beginning of the year, which also offered me a few advantages in direct comparison with the f/4 II. To be honest, I didn’t notice the slightly higher speed that much, neither when you look at the blur nor when you look at the exposure, that it gave me any significant advantage.
In direct comparison, you can see some small differences, but if I’m honest, it’s not necessarily worth it, especially when you consider that the image stabilizer of the faster version lags far behind that of the lighter one. But even if you look at it side by side, I would be very happy with both results.
In August, I realized more and more that I didn’t want the extra weight. In the meantime, I had sold the small lightweight lens with a little broken heart, as two lenses just didn’t make sense for me. So I took the opportunity to borrow and test an RF 70-200mm f/4 for a while. And what can I say: since it has been with me, it has replaced the faster lens in my photo backpack, which on the one hand saves me a lot of weight and on the other hand also makes room for an EF 135mm f/2, which after some consideration has found its way to me as a fast addition. For various reasons, but mainly the lack of IS, I’m not including it in the direct comparison here, because I only use it when I really need that last bit of speed. That’s the end of the weight saving in the bag, but you really notice when you’re taking photos whether you’re carrying around 700g or over a kilogram on your camera.
The lack of light is not a real problem either, as I have been able to demonstrate repeatedly over the last few months with the white storks roosting on the church in our town.
Even in direct comparison with the 135, which was also used here, you can see the difference less in the ISO values than in the blurred stars, as the lack of IS simply requires faster shutter speeds despite IBIS (even if 1/10s is still feasible).
As you can see, the faster version has become relatively irrelevant. I have since sold the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II, as it simply wasn’t worth keeping both lenses. If I only want to travel with the lightest equipment and still have good light intensity, my choice will probably more and more often in future be the R8 and RF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM combination, about which I have already written a short report here (this one unfortunately only in German). But I’m not ruling out the possibility of something else in the future, perhaps I’ll test the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS or the RF 135mm f/1.8 L IS is also very tempting.
Leave a Reply