|
| sent on 22 Novembre 2025
Pros: All except the "cons".
Cons: the incompatibility with a Teleconverter, the travel of the zoom rotation, the cost.
Opinion: Saying something different than what has already been said about this lens is difficult if not impossible, especially when the opinions on the results obtained are totally and positively agreed so, as a former user of the EF II version (to tell the truth, over the years, I changed 3 EF II before finding the sharp one at 2.8) I will limit myself to summarizing the differences I have noticed, in addition of course to the weight (which is why "I had to" switch to the RF version, shooting mainly sports and no longer having the physique of many years ago, I came home in pain...). So, in the order of how they come to mind, I first list the advantages I have found: - reduced weight and size; - excellent sharpness at f/2.8, far superior to my best EF (which was finally sharp...) - lightning-fast autofocus speed, the EF was already fast, but that's more! - more effective and silent stabilization; - more "faithful" colors; - significant reduction in the minimum distance of MAF. Of course - in my opinion - it is not perfect so I don't like: - the incompatibility with a Teleconverter, but I think I understand the reason: duplicate, given the performance, it would have been an obstacle to the sales of supertele...; - the external zoom, we will see if and how much dust it will "suck up", but having to reduce the size the choice was obligatory; - the longer zoom rotation travel than the EF which - at least to me - does not allow you to switch with a single movement at the bottom of the stroke; - the blur is not that of the EF, even if in the end I don't mind, maybe more than in the "cons" I should write it in the "pros"... - the lack of a semi-rigid housing (to be clear, like the one of the EF): with what it costs, this "sacrifice" they could do it... - the cost, but this is the sore point of all RF L lenses, luckily I "financed" his purchase with the sale of the 2 70-200 in my possession (2.8 II and 4 II) and the excellent and heavy Sigma 50-100 1.8 Art from which I was really sorry to part, but he was a boulder too and photographing had become a sacrifice ... indeed, in the end I even had a couple of hundred euros left that don't hurt. In conclusion: if I were to buy a 70-200 f/2.8 for R, I would have no doubts about getting this lens, it costs, but it is worth them all! |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
![[editors pick]](shared_files/layout/ep_badge.jpg){kind=icon}
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.
