Best 70-200mm F2.8 Lens (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic) 

I would have gotten it if it wasn't 3 grand here.

@@neroangelo4439 i think its worth it. i just ordered mine off of Amazon a few days ago. $2600 new. should be here in a week. I know Nikon was definitely the slowest transitioning into the mirrorless cameras but man they really do deliver. Just gotta fix the AF a bit. Still, love my Z6 and i cant wait to try out my new 70-200 f2.8

@@otakutaka817 agreed, love my Z6 (vast improvements with the firmware upgrades) and will get the Z7II as a second/first body - my Z6 is mainly used for filming - and will fork out for the 70-200 S 2.8, amazing lens!!!

@michael must be doing something wrong every image i shoot is sharp.

Tried it and sadly was disappointed. The lens seems solid, but the af can't keep up compared to my D850 and the R6 I also tested.

Canon is a dust pump. Imagine paying all that cash only to find out you can't put a TC on it.

@@silvere36 that is a Statement which is not covered by reality. Please see on lensrentals !!!!

Different strokes for different folks, as a long time Nikon shooter I can tell you my Canon 70-200RF gets more use than any of my previous Nikon 70-200 as that compactness and weight saving makes you use the lense way more which is what photography is all about! Quality is really top notch! If you used it for some time you would never go back seriously 👌🏻 I get your point about the converter though and it’s totally valid!

@@KevinJRegan I do like the size of the Canon, when I first seen it I thought about converting back but I have had a Canon 5d mark 3 fail on me in rain that was nothing serious so it makes me worry about this lens in terms of toughness with the extending barrel but man that size is so nice I cant deny. IMO they should have made the 2.8 a pro lens that can take teleconverters and without the extending barrel, focusing on pure quality and made an even smaller F4 version that extended out like that. In fact I also wish Nikon had a 70-200 f4 that extended but there is none even in the roadmap. I actually don't need 2.8 and would forego some toughness if I were paying 1000-1500 instead of 4k where I live.

Yeah not bad lens for a brand that will die soon 😅

They call it "sample variation." That is a nice way of saying this is an overpriced turd muffin.

Sunstars OOF? Tele?

If you often work in a rain and still don't get an umbrella holder for your backpack, I don't think you should be in possession of these precision equipments.

​@@shang-hsienyang1284 If you chose between say the Nikon or Canon for rain shooting darting in-between tree cover and the like, which one would you have more confidence in to remain resistant?

Never had any priblem in the Rain with my canon . Sure nikon is pribsblly better westhersealed but i dont usually poor water oj then while zooming in and out

So far, no problem at all with dust and rain with my canon rf 70200

@@Herkulez1981 :)

I wonder about that too. Cabin not so small with hood. I'm bothered that it can't take a TC.

It'd have murdered the other four when price is factored in, so that's why they left it out 🤣

check out dustin abott's RF 70-200 review. It basically hammered the rf 70-200 wide open resolution performance at its price point. My only bum with it is they chose not to add IS. If not there would be no hesitation for any one to buy an E mount telephoto zoom anymore.

Not really

No IS is a bummer. Why not include that, even if it adds a little bit of bulk and cost? Would have been the better decision I'd say.

Did we watch the same video? Having the worst Bokeh really does not speak for the lens

@@PrinzMegahertz let’s be honest this was a trash bokeh test, not comprehensive at all. The Nikon has really great bokeh from what I’ve seen in other examples

@@lilnape2604 Agree. TBH I cannot see any differences between the four lenses. They could have done it better by simply shooting out-of-focus photo in the evening.

@@PrinzMegahertz The canon bokeh ball was as bad. But this was a useless test. This is not how a bokeh test is done. This is a biased review. Very clear. It is the subjective where the bias shows.

@@PrinzMegahertz bokeh is more than just the size and shape of one's balls

"Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?"

You'll find the dust will weigh it down, once it gets inside.

@@prl105 Did you see the RF 70-200 teardown made by lensrentals ? What do you think about it ?

@@huxcry78 Hey Paul. No I didn't see RC's review, but read he was impressed.Of course its not a new concept, many zoom lens designs have discarded the single shell outer construction to save weight and space so the only novel element of the RF 70-200 is this features inclusion in a 'professional' destined lens. Usually manufacturers also reduce the price significantly, but I notice this hasn't happened (yet!). Time will tell whether this design will hold-up through many years of service; I've had my current 70-200 f/2.8 for 10+ years and its clean as a whistle, but its foolish to expect this new lens will survive all the bumps and bruises of professionals use without suffering consequences of its design. Professionals get to use their kit in dusty dirty places and having a set of bellows attached mid-ships to a rather expensive lens does not fill me with confidence. Yes it has filters, yes it has weather sealing, and yes it has moving parts against those same filters and seals that through use, neglect or age will fail; then the science (laws of physics) will take over. The DPREVIEW guys made a 'pigs ear' of this review, clearly showing bias (dunno why!). They could have lined it up at 70mm and 200mm to compare sizes, they could have found and attached the lens hood and made a bit of a fuss about the sliding door that it features to access a polarising filter. The AF speed test was total nonsense for the most part, as AF performance usually is controlled to a larger extent by the camera firmware which they didn't even mention. Bokeh is always going to be subjective without any variation of background; its not all about points of light. Then the focus test was probably the most unscientific I've ever experienced. I'm with ChrisN wife that target he used should be in the skip probably along with the review itself. I'm disappointed with DPREVIEW, they used to be quite a creditable bunch, but recently they appear to be heading the same way as the fro/knobrots of the youtube world. Shame.

@@prl105 Agree with you on these tests. They could be much more detailed, tested in various situations. I guess this video would have last an hour if they did it with deeper testing which may not fit to their time limits. Only time will tell for the engineering choice of this lens. I have not noticed issues on the net yet as this lens is a year old now. The only real downside for me is the incompatibility with extenders. I think it's a great move to have made this lens so professionals can still use the EF version if they go in dangerous environment, but for a non negligible amount of users the RF will get the job done, being robust and reliable enough for most situations. I still believe that other manufacturers should propose this alternative too. Thank you for taking the time to answer.

@@huxcry78 I took delivery of my Z 70-200mm f/2..8 VR S lens and Z 1x4TC last week. If/when it ever stops raining I'll get out to test it. Just the few shots I've taken indoors are showing quite an improvement over my F-mount 70-200 (G) lens, which perhaps wasn't the best copy. I have to say though the short-comings of the G lens are all addressed and then some by the S-line lens. Probably I'll leave the TC attached as there is little difference in quality unless I absolutely need the f/2.8 DOF/Bokeh.

I find it interesting that every other review puts the Nikon Z 70-200mm as the best 70-200mm ever, but yet DPReview decides that it is tied for 3rd? The test results on just about every other sites shows Nikon is sharper, has less chromatic aberrations and almost no distortion, yet Canon wins.

Agree on Nikon, ordering one this week for my Z6 II. I thought it was odd until Canon released this "lipstick expanding style" every reviewer INSISTED on internal zoom. Yet, after Canon released, no RU-vidr talks about it.

@@Honkus I think the worst one is Tony Northrup. He made a big deal about banding and yet all mirrorless have them. He also made a big deal about rolling shutter on Nikon Z cameras, yet every camera has the same problem. When he tries to explain what rolling shuttle was, he had an image that states shot with Nikon Z7 on it. Why doesn't he use Sony image? He made it sound like only Nikon cameras have this problem. The other one is Tony claims Nikon charges a lot of money for their new cameras then after a few months they go on discount so they can get as much money from early adopters. Guess what, Sony A7R4 and A9ii were on sale for over $1500cdn just a few months ago. And I constantly see them on sale. This guy is a youtuber and not really a photographer. I stopped watching his bias opinions.

@@mlai2546 oh, I stopped watching Tony last year. He is pretty terrible for all the reasons you pointed out. Also his abuse of the f1.2 while filming was just stupidly distracting on top of his biased and flawed logic for a “tech writer”. :)

@@mlai2546 What's "every other review"? Virtually all reputable outlets agree that they're all pretty much even in image quality, while the Nikon and Panasonic lack in af speed due to the comparatively worse bodies. Most also comment Canon for the fact that they're the only ones delivering an innovative package with their much smaller size and lighter weight. By most accounts, this adds up to the Canon being the best choice and the others being about even.

It probably doesn't at all. I've shot with extending barrels in literal monsoon thunderstorms before (Tamron 24-70 G2 mostly) and nothing happened to the lens. I highly doubt Canon compromised the integrity of a lens they know tons of wedding and sports photographers will use for their professional work. A bad rep for their glass with that crowd would be really, really bad news for the company.

I agree. All these videos about how 1/2 a pound is destroying their creative projects...Lift some weights, people!

Wrong! Every gram counts if you carry 5 or more lens in you bag! 😆

It’s just 70-180 not 70-200 🙆🏼‍♂️

The RF 70-200 does NOT accept teleconverters. The lens you are thinking is the RF 100-500 which accepts teleconverters and indeed locks out the wide end.

@@erikszigeti thanks, that’s a boo on both counts.

They won't do it cos there's the rf 28-70 f2.0 that would beat all the other standard zoom lenses.

The RF teleconverters both extend into the mount of the lens, and the 70-200 lens has glass there so they interfere and won't mount. It's a travesty.

Also an OLED not a LCD :-)

@@JonInLondon even better

Excellent question!

That is because he moved the Canon Up and down for this Test. The Lens is excellent for Videowork and the dual Pixel AF is working perfect (you can adjust the AF Speed and Transition speed in the camera)

Why this Canon tele-lens cant quickly change framing?

But it's a 70-200 comparison. : |

@@derekv6479 then crop to 200mm on a 60mp Sony A7R4 and find out how it holds up. But lets get real, 180mm is very very close towards 200mm. It’s a lens that competes with the 70-200 line, else it would be the winner of the 70-180 lineup ;-)

@@AngelusHD It's not an apples to apples comparison. Being able not to account for 20 mm is a huge deal as far as optimizing optics throughout the rest of the range. Why do you think they did it? It's a one-off lens. People who buy these types of lenses for the compression effect won't even look at that unless they are on a budget.

@@derekv6479 I already stated it’s a one-off lens in my first comment, so why making an effort to repeat me. I know it’s not an 70-200, alot of people are on a budget, by not looking at the 70-180 if you are in the market for a 70-200 is just nonsense. But please don’t try to explain why they did not include such a lens, i’m fully aware why they didn’t :) As the topic starter stated, it would be nice to get a follow-up comparison. Which means it’s it’s another comparison in a different video and like yourself stated, it’s not an lens that should be in the original video, we all know why.

Think you'll discover the Tammy fails between 181-200mm.

It is

not so outstanding in not being compatible with any of the RF Tc's.

@@dafyddthomas7299 You are right. But the Canon is so small that I can put an additional RF 11/800 into my bag (which gives me a 4 times extender that collects as much light as the 2.8/200 does).

IBIS in the Nikon with the lens VR is honestly insane

I would think the 24-105mm f4 would be a good starter / all-purpose lens. Better yet, a Sigma 24-70mm f2.8. If you do end up with the f4 zoom, you might want a 24mm prime for video. You might consider something unconventional like the Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 if you need something wider. That's still a great focal range for video.

tamron is trash.

It's an L lens, I'm sure it will be fine (see www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/12/the-not-very-long-awaited-teardown-of-the-canon-rf-70-200mm-f2-8-is/ )

@@JonInLondon Not after a few years in a extreme hot / cold weather, when rubber seals start getting stiffer and lens starts sucking minor dust particles. The second drawbacks is a fully extended lens barrel. Be very careful not to smack something under an angle. Easily can damage the lens.

@@eldindokara7868 Canon seals use the latest materials and last for many years, plus RogerC in his RF 70-200 teardown described its construction as super-strong...

@@JonInLondon Yes sir, but nobody escaped father time. had opportunity to have Nikon 18-200mm VR's, ultimate lens vacuum cleaners :-)

@@eldindokara7868 Good to know, the carpet could do with a go-over :-) On the up side it's nearly impossible to see the effects of dust inside a lens. kurtmunger.com/dirty_lens_articleid35.html wordpress.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/08/the-apocalypse-of-lens-dust/