Yes, there is definitely more micro contrast with the 2.8: I guessed all correctly in the quiz, just focussing on the micro contrast - even stopped down the 2.8 is the better lens.
I use my camera for outdoor and wildlife photos. Since it's on mountain hikes I do, I rather go with the lighter lens and the little bit of extra magnification. Would be nice to get better photos at dawn but I think I can live with the trade off.
I agree the price gives me nightmares and also question the weather sealing on this new RF mount version. The new 70-200 2.8 seems more vulnerable than the EF mount versions. As someone who has shot ancestors of this lens for 20+ years, the value in this lens is that you can avoid buying a few primes - 85mm, 100mm, 135mm unless you explicitly want them. the 70-200 f2.8 has always been a good enough replacement for most people, and if you insist on 135mm f2, 85f1.2, etc. I hope your wife has separate bank account.
@@emredalgaaThe F4 is a fantastic lens. I have it and use it a lot for indoor and outdoor sport photography. It was my main lens during a networking event I did recently as well. The lighting at the venue wasn’t the best but I managed, to get great shots nonetheless. If you know you’re shooting in a poorly lit environment, consider using a flash. You won’t regret it !
HI, have you noticed in the 2.8 version that it jumps from 84mm to 86mm and does not allow for an exact 85mm? Do you know how to correct this? Thank you.
