p.2 #1 · My 2 days with the two RF 70-200 f/2.8L (Z and non Z) lenses (pros/cons for those deciding between the two)
re: the black Z with a white extender...I'll just call this my Oreo setup
I haven't bought an extender yet because I have the 100-500L and the 200-800 which I use for when I need the extra reach, and my old 70-200 didn't work with one.
I will likely buy an extender in the future if:
1) I know I'm going on a shoot where I don't need more than 280mm (for the 1.4X) or 400mm (for the 2X), and
2) I need the extra stop of light at 280mm (f/4 vs f/5.6) or 1/3 extra stop of light at 400mm (f/5.6 vs f/6.3)
p.2 #2 · My 2 days with the two RF 70-200 f/2.8L (Z and non Z) lenses (pros/cons for those deciding between the two)
EB-1 wrote:
But how can you easily use filters with a screw-in hood? It seems a polarizer would rotate with the hood for example. I have some black plastic grip sheet on on my 100-500 hoods. A generiatic 100-400 II hood or other blackened 83mm hoods will work.
I do like the tripod collar for the Z f/2.8. It appears to have an integrated bearing, not like the crappy 100-500 expensive, clamp style collar that moves poorly and breaks all the time.
EBH
Indeed a screw-on hood can screw onto a polarizer and one of the reasons I am adapting a metal 77mm hood is because I already have a 77mm polarizer. I never use the 'access door' on Canon's hoods with polarizers because it's kind of annoying to use.
At least for me, I barely use filters and it wasn't a major consideration. But I use a hood with every lens and dislike the massively bulky Canon hoods for many situations, particularly when traveling, if I don't have a lot of extra space in the bag to accommodate them. The short metal hood also keeps the overall configuration slightly more compact.
The built-in collar is good. It's smooth. My nit-pick though is with the removable foot design. At least with the copies I've used, I have to really tighten the foot's locking knob to eliminate all play. If I don't, there's a slight but noticeable amount of wiggle that bothers me.
p.2 #5 · My 2 days with the two RF 70-200 f/2.8L (Z and non Z) lenses (pros/cons for those deciding between the two)
One of the signs (for me) that I may be making a rash, or bad, decision is when I'm about to sell my old gear and I get a bit of FOMO.
That didn't happen in this instance. I had my appraisal consult yesterday, and the old lens is packed up with all its accessories and I'll be heading out to FedEx as soon as I finish this post. Not only did I not get FOMO, but I actually feel confident about this decision (again, for me and my use cases, there are definitely pros to the older lens that people will prefer over the Z).
In fact, since I had the lens two days longer (I thought I was going to ship it Monday) there were times when I thought "should I take both out and keep doing A/B comparisons to make sure I'm doing the right thing?" And then I'd just take the Z lens out and focus only on shooting my local area and ended up not missing the old lens at all.
p.2 #6 · My 2 days with the two RF 70-200 f/2.8L (Z and non Z) lenses (pros/cons for those deciding between the two)
I make rash and bad decisions without selling any gear, though I've never sold one item to get another similar item. Vehicles and homes are an exception.
The IQ is exemplary and it will probably be many years before Canon makes a new 70-200/2.8. it's a long term lens, so get it if you want.
p.2 #7 · My 2 days with the two RF 70-200 f/2.8L (Z and non Z) lenses (pros/cons for those deciding between the two)
EB-1 wrote:
The IQ is exemplary and it will probably be many years before Canon makes a new 70-200/2.8. it's a long term lens, so get it if you want.
EBH
Oh it's (the Z) already been purchased and has been living side-by-side with the non Z until an hour ago, when I dropped it off at FedEx for KEH. I was simply saying I had one last chance to second-guess my decision, and there was zero second-guessing, which gives me confidence that the choice I made was the correct one for me.
And yeah, given how the Z came out last year, it would be shocking to see another 70-200 f/2.8 within the next 5 years. But even if they did, this Z lens checks all of the boxes that I'm looking for, I'm not sure what else they could do.
But in reality my next lens purchase will be an ultra-wide, probably the 14 f/1.4 VCM for landscape, architecture and astrophotography.
p.2 #8 · My 2 days with the two RF 70-200 f/2.8L (Z and non Z) lenses (pros/cons for those deciding between the two)
Just wanted to give my 2 cents about these two lenses.
I got the RF 70-200 non Z at the release and have always hated the image quality for 165mm and up. It is very blurry. Below it was sharp and under 135mm very sharp.
When they annouced the Z version I instantly sold the non Z version and got the Z. Its extremely sharp across the entire range. And its very good with the 1.4X.
p.2 #9 · My 2 days with the two RF 70-200 f/2.8L (Z and non Z) lenses (pros/cons for those deciding between the two)
villean wrote:
Just wanted to give my 2 cents about these two lenses.
I got the RF 70-200 non Z at the release and have always hated the image quality for 165mm and up. It is very blurry. Below it was sharp and under 135mm very sharp.
When they annouced the Z version I instantly sold the non Z version and got the Z. Its extremely sharp across the entire range. And its very good with the 1.4X.
Could it have been a sample issue? I ask because mine (and I've since traded it in, so I no longer have it) was sharp pretty much across the entire focal length even wide open. Obviously the new one is a little sharper, but I wouldn't have called the non Z performance blurry.
Out of curiosity I went to TDP's lens image quality comparator and set both to 200mm and to me that looks to be an accurate representation of what I'm seeing.
p.2 #10 · My 2 days with the two RF 70-200 f/2.8L (Z and non Z) lenses (pros/cons for those deciding between the two)
villean wrote:
Just wanted to give my 2 cents about these two lenses.
I got the RF 70-200 non Z at the release and have always hated the image quality for 165mm and up. It is very blurry. Below it was sharp and under 135mm very sharp.
When they annouced the Z version I instantly sold the non Z version and got the Z. Its extremely sharp across the entire range. And its very good with the 1.4X.
You definitely got a lemon then, because your experience isn’t representative of the non-Z version, at all. I’ve owned a few copies now, and every one of them has been razor sharp throughout the range.
I just wanted to point out that you got a dud so people reading this and considering the lens don’t come away thinking that performance is typical.
p.2 #11 · My 2 days with the two RF 70-200 f/2.8L (Z and non Z) lenses (pros/cons for those deciding between the two)
artsupreme wrote:
You definitely got a lemon then, because your experience isn’t representative of the non-Z version, at all. I’ve owned a few copies now, and every one of them has been razor sharp throughout the range.
I just wanted to point out that you got a dud so people reading this and considering the lens don’t come away thinking that performance is typical.
No I don't think so. Canon repair said nothing was wrong and its in line with the review from Dustin Abbott ( )
I even got a replacement and got the same results. Tested on R5 R5II and R1.
Could be that the replacement was also a lemon and that Dustin also got a lemon but from my point of perspective that seems highly unlikely.
Not saying that yours is/was not sharp just saying it happens that there are unsharp copies out there. Could also be that I am more pixel peeping compared to most folk. Happy to share samples from what I think is soft if needed.
