EF 70-200 2.8L IS MKII and RF 70-200 2.8L Z

[strikerstu]

Quite a specific question, has anyone done a diect comparison of the above 2 lenses? I'm trying to decide if it's worth the upgrade, as it's probably my most used lens.
I have found the EF version to be very fast focussing on the R3 and limited tests I've done on my new R1. Optically, it's one of the sharpest lens I own.

Obviously there would be a weight saving, both with the lens and not needing to use an adapter, but to be honest, I've used it on the R3 and 1DX3 and weight was/is never an issue.

So, opinions please, what would be the benefit of upgrading? the main one for me, is there is still a good bit of value in the EF version given some of the quotes I've had.

Stuart

 

[Nick5]

Stuart.
Do you still have your EF Mount bodies like your 1Dx3 or others?
What other lenses do you have and are the other needs.
I still have my EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II as I’m still using a pair of 5D Mark III’s. I use the 70-200 f/4 L IS Mark II 99% of the time. However when I do use the f/2.8…. What a lens, now 13 years old.
Tough call trading in one of the best and you can still use it fully with adapter for R bodies.

 

[strikerstu]

No Nick, just got rid of the 1DX3 for an R1 to go with the R3 as I could not get on with two different types of bodies.

The other lenses I have are EF 24-70 2.8 latest version, EF 300 2.8 IS MKI which is a fantastic lens on the mirrorless bodies, and the 500 F4L MKI. All work very well on R3, so I expect they will be even better on R1.

The big problem will be replacing the 300 2.8 if it ever cannot be repaired, as there is nothing in the RF range that compares to it. Apart from the 100-300 2.8, and I'm not spending that much on a lens.

Stuart

 

[Lester Wareham]

You could pickup the RF-EF adaptor and compare on a R body.

There may some test shots done by one of the webzeens. I was thinking of https://www.photozone.de/all-tests et al.

 

[strikerstu]

I have 2 RF adaptors, one for each of my bodies, R1 and R3. It works great with them, everyone keeps saying how good the new 70-200 Z lens is, I was just wondering in what way it is.

Stuart

 

[West Coast Birder]

Stuart, advantages of the RF Z version vs. the EF version are a) not requiring the adapter b) increased image stabilization c) slight increase in sharpness. Whether these are worth it to you to spend the extra money for the RF version is something you need to decide. I have concluded that I have a fantastic EF 70-200 II that puts a smile on my face every time I use it, and getting the RF version isn't worth it to me.

But to come back to your basic question, this info below may be useful:

This review from Bryan at The Digital Picture is useful. Especially refer to the section titled Image Quality. Click on the Load Comparison Images button below the MTF curves to load an EF comparison. You can see the slight improvement in the MTF characteristics.

As far as stabilization is concerned, please see the table below for comparison between the IS for RF and EF lenses on R bodies. As you can see, EF lenses do not compensate for all vibration modes (X/Y, pitch, yaw, and roll) as effectively as RF lenses do.



Full details on how R bodies handle IS on RF and EF lenses can be found at this link.

 

[Lester Wareham]

I have 2 RF adaptors, one for each of my bodies, R1 and R3. It works great with them, everyone keeps saying how good the new 70-200 Z lens is, I was just wondering in what way it is.

Stuart

Ah sorry probably missed.

 

[strikerstu]

Thanks for that Sam, interesting. I don't know about you, but I find with motorsport and panning etc, IS slows the focus down. 8n all the years of doing motorsport photography, I would say the number of photographers I know that use IS is very few.

I've used it this year in the winter at the local park when photographing deer, maybe the odd time in the garages in pitlane, but only when my shutter speed gets below 1/30 sec.

As you say, it all points to keeping what I have.

Stuart

 

[3Rotor]

Thanks for that Sam, interesting. I don't know about you, but I find with motorsport and panning etc, IS slows the focus down. 8n all the years of doing motorsport photography, I would say the number of photographers I know that use IS is very few.

I've used it this year in the winter at the local park when photographing deer, maybe the odd time in the garages in pitlane, but only when my shutter speed gets below 1/30 sec.

As you say, it all points to keeping what I have.

Stuart

I am on the opposite side of the fence. I have mostly used IS for my motorsports work regardless of DSLR or MILC. I just got back from the Daytona 500 this weekend and the results were even better than expected. Combinations that were used, R1/RF100-300-2.8 with and without 1.4 Extender, R5/RF15-35-2.8/RF24-70-2.8. I also paired an R3 with the RF400-2.8 and RF100-500-4.5-7.1 a couple of years ago at COTA. All with excellent results.

I highly recommend you renting the Z so you know for sure. It costs about $150 to rent the lens for a week here in the states. Not sure of its availability and cost over in the UK though.

 

[West Coast Birder]

Yeah, there is probably no single answer that works. For me, I don't shoot sports, wildlife, or any action shots with my EF 70-200. It is primarily for general purpose shots with static or slow moving subjects. I have left the IS on by default on the lens and in all the years I have used it on my 6D and my 5D4, I have never felt the IS lacking in any way for my use cases, so any purported IS improvement with the RF version isn't that important to me.

 

[Mk1Racer]

I've been hearing great things about the RF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM, and am really torn about it. I currently have an EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM Mk I, which I am most likely going to sell. Can decide between an EF 70-200 Mk II + adapter or the RF 70-200. I like the fact that the RF lens is shorter and lighter than the EF + adapter. My question is, if I'm going to get the RF 70-200, is there any reason to spend the extra money for the Z version over the non-Z version, if I never plan on using it for video and needing a power zoom? Right now, it looks like ~$500 difference between the Z and non-Z versions ($3k vs. $2.5k, respectively).

 

[Lester Wareham]

What are meant to be the advantages of the Z over the L for you?

I see the power zoom (key for video), the non-extending zoom but the L is more compact packed (key for travel).

 

[strikerstu]

To me the "big" advantage of the Z version over the standard RF L version, is the internal zoom. Far more protected from getting moisture inside, and I use my kit in some really bad weather. You can't pick and choose what day to go to car races, if it's wet you just get on with it.

It would just be nice to see a direct comparison with the Ver 2 EF lens, which in its own right is superb.

Stuart

 

[Mk1Racer]

To me the "big" advantage of the Z version over the standard RF L version, is the internal zoom. Far more protected from getting moisture inside, and I use my kit in some really bad weather. You can't pick and choose what day to go to car races, if it's wet you just get on with it.

It would just be nice to see a direct comparison with the Ver 2 EF lens, which in its own right is superb.

Stuart

I would agree that the internal zoom is a big advantage, and I would accept the extra length 'penalty' to have that. But the EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM III is the same length, weighs about 12oz more, but is almost $1k cheaper ($2100 vs. $3000). I realize that it's actually longer since you have to use the RF/EF converter ring, but I've already got that. I could buy both the EF 1.4x & 2x TC's for the difference, but they won't do me any good w/ my RF lenses. Can you put the RF/EF adapter between an RF TC and an EF lens?

 

[strikerstu]

I've never tried, or seen that combination of adapter and converter used, so cannot answer that.

Stuart

 

[strikerstu]

Bringing this thread to a conclusion.

Over the summer, I had the chance to try the 70-200 Z version, and I liked it. Weight saving and no adaptor was a big positive, more so than I thought it would be. More impressive was the focus speed. I thought my previous comination was good, but this is at a different level.
Slight improvement on image quality, but not massive. I would say the contrast and shadow detail seem better out of camera, but nothing that could not be corrected in processing when using the old lens.

Anyway, as they say, it's never a good thing to borrow one for a couple of hours, especially when its trackside where I use it most.

So, in conclusion, I have one being delivered in the next day or so. Hopefully the storm forecast for this coming weekend won't stop me giving it a good tryout.

Stuart