12-26-2019 11:05 AM. "The EF 70-200 f/2.8 or the RF 50mm f/1.2 ". I have both for DSLR cameras. So, this is based on that fact. The choice isn't even a debatable, the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM Lens as a first lens. It is by far more friendly and will be tons more useful. Not simply portraits.
For your use cases I would go for the f4 IS, since non of them seems to be for sports or other situations requiring the extra shutter speed from the f/2.8. Remember that the IS in modern Canon lenses give you up to 4 stops, which might be more useful than the 1 stop difference going from f/4 to f/2.8.
The Digital Picture samples for the RF 100-400 are very bad at 400mm, my RF 100-400 is much much better, probably a bad copy, maybe RF 70-200 L F4 with rf x2 extender is not bad but it's not the same price (1600$ + 600$ VS 650$) The RF 70-200 f4.0 doesn't take an extender. The RF 70-200mm F2.8 vs. F4 lens image quality comparison shows the F2.8 lens as sharp (resolution and contrast) or sharper at f/2.8 as the f/4 lens at f/4. Equalized at f/4, the F2.8 lens has an advantage, and the two lenses perform more similarly at f/5.6.
\n canon rf 70 200 f4 vs f2 8
Panasonic S1 Panasonic Lumix DC-S1R Canon RF 50mm F1.2L USM Panasonic S Pro 70-200mm F4 OIS Canon RF 24-70mm F2.8L IS USM +3 more Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain

Speaking really generally, the 70-200mm f/2.8 is a widely used workhorse. I'd wager that nearly every photojournalist has one. It great for nearly any event, lecture, wedding, reception, portraiture, even some sports. The 85mm f/1.2 strikes me as an ideal lens for portraiture, but fairly limited for other things.

RF 70-200 F4 EF 70-200 F4 EF 70-200 F2.8 Version II used EF 70-200 F2.8 Version III used (if I find a good deal) Would be using this lens primarily for sports, but also a good take-a-long for hiking. My encounters with low light have been limiting w the EFS 55-250 f4-5.6, which is why I listed the 2.8 versions.

But Canon claims the "stops" stabalization between the two is the same. I chose the f2.8 for my R5. I think if I was doing a lot of headshots I would get the 85mm f1.2 in addition to my 24-70. Though commiting $2500 would be a heartbreak. There is a 85mm f2 at $550. You can put all the numbers in a DOF calculator.

Now I keep seeing used 135L lenses for just over half that price. The 135L is about the same size and weight as the new RF 70-200. For portraits the two stop advantage would be welcome. And for dance recitals, obviously f2 is better than f4 in low light. I could add it to my kit and not have to sell my EF 70-200. I'm really wary of any used lens. DHqyiKA.
  • z1qf25ahrr.pages.dev/21
  • z1qf25ahrr.pages.dev/38
  • z1qf25ahrr.pages.dev/163
  • z1qf25ahrr.pages.dev/383
  • z1qf25ahrr.pages.dev/72
  • z1qf25ahrr.pages.dev/292
  • z1qf25ahrr.pages.dev/217
  • z1qf25ahrr.pages.dev/307

    • canon rf 70 200 f4 vs f2 8