I bought the RF 70-200mm F4 L lens mostly for travel and longer range landscape photography. I have been amazed by how compact this lens is, without compromising on sharpness, AF speed, or versatility. Do I miss the extra stop of the F2. 8 lens? Not at all for my style of daytime photography (usually shot at F5. 6 or greater). This is the smallest 70-200mm lens on the market and a unique selling point for canon. See the photo to show just how small this lens is - for an L series telephoto! Strongly recommended.

Canon RF 70-200 F/4 L IS USM Lens

The Canon RF 70-200 F/4 L IS USM Lens is an excellent lens. I use it together with the Canon EOS R8. Here are the Pros and Cons:Pros:1- Fast Auto Focus for both still and moving subjects2- Very sharp throughout the entire zoom range. When I zoom in, people's eyelashes are tack sharp!3- In-camera corrections work well4- Lighter compared to other 70-200 lenses5- Minimum focusing distance is 2 feet6- Image Stabilization with 3 different modes: stills, panning, & action7- It zooms smoothly by hand and feels comfortable to holdCons:1- Focus Breathing at minimum focus distance.2- Eye Autofocus sometimes isn't fast enough for fast action like jumping, running, etc. Instead, it shifts to Face Auto Focus when Eye AF isn't possible.3- Still weighs 1.5 pounds.4- ... MoreThe Canon RF 70-200 F/4 L IS USM Lens is an excellent lens. I use it together with the Canon EOS R8. Here are the Pros and Cons:Pros:1- Fast Auto Focus for both still and moving subjects2- Very sharp throughout the entire zoom range. When I zoom in, people's eyelashes are tack sharp!3- In-camera corrections work well4- Lighter compared to other 70-200 lenses5- Minimum focusing distance is 2 feet6- Image Stabilization with 3 different modes: stills, panning, & action7- It zooms smoothly by hand and feels comfortable to holdCons:1- Focus Breathing at minimum focus distance.2- Eye Autofocus sometimes isn't fast enough for fast action like jumping, running, etc. Instead, it shifts to Face Auto Focus when Eye AF isn't possible.3- Still weighs 1.5 pounds.4- Not compatible with teleconverters5- Not internal zoomIn sum, it's a fantastic lens for portraits. I recommend it.

Compact, Sharp, and all round excellent telephoto

I bought the RF 70-200mm F4 L lens mostly for travel and longer range landscape photography. I have been amazed by how compact this lens is, without compromising on sharpness, AF speed, or versatility. Do I miss the extra stop of the F2.8 lens? Not at all for my style of daytime photography (usually shot at F5.6 or greater). This is the smallest 70-200mm lens on the market and a unique selling point for canon. See the photo to show just how small this lens is - for an L series telephoto! Strongly recommended.

Great Lens

I previously had a tamron 70-200 f/2.8 when I had DSLR bodies and compared to that, I love this lens better. Sure I can't stop down for more shadow DoF, but previously I rarely shot that wide open. Unless it was needed b/c of lighting, I usually stayed around f/4 anyways. Now with my mirrorless (r6) I don't worry as much about low light situations, b/c if I would have used 2.8, with my r6 I just bump the iso, knowing that I wont have a noticeable increase of noise, at least not anything that I can't remove in LR. Considering the price difference between the 2.8 and 4.0, it made it a no-brainer. I specifically purchased this lens for college graduation events I am booked for regularly, and after shooting three of those back-to-back last December, I know this will ... MoreI previously had a tamron 70-200 f/2.8 when I had DSLR bodies and compared to that, I love this lens better. Sure I can't stop down for more shadow DoF, but previously I rarely shot that wide open. Unless it was needed b/c of lighting, I usually stayed around f/4 anyways. Now with my mirrorless (r6) I don't worry as much about low light situations, b/c if I would have used 2.8, with my r6 I just bump the iso, knowing that I wont have a noticeable increase of noise, at least not anything that I can't remove in LR. Considering the price difference between the 2.8 and 4.0, it made it a no-brainer. I specifically purchased this lens for college graduation events I am booked for regularly, and after shooting three of those back-to-back last December, I know this will always be in my bag for any type of event, not matter how large.

I made the right choice

I'm sure I'm not the lone ranger in that I struggled between getting this lens or the rather more expensive f/2.8 version. I know that the f/2.8 would be an amazing lens and produce shallower DOF and thus creamier bokeh. It would also be 1-stop better in low light. So, let me list the factors I weighed in my decision to purchase this lens and not the f/2.8 version:1. I shoot mainly landscapes. I do shoot occasional portraits of family and friends, but the ratio is about 9:1 in favor of landscapes, where having extremely shallow DOF isn't really necessary.2. On occasions when I do shoot portraits or people or objects and want a blurry back, I find that f/4 does a decent job. Does it blow out the background as much as f/2.8? No, but most of the time, I want to at ... MoreI'm sure I'm not the lone ranger in that I struggled between getting this lens or the rather more expensive f/2.8 version. I know that the f/2.8 would be an amazing lens and produce shallower DOF and thus creamier bokeh. It would also be 1-stop better in low light. So, let me list the factors I weighed in my decision to purchase this lens and not the f/2.8 version:1. I shoot mainly landscapes. I do shoot occasional portraits of family and friends, but the ratio is about 9:1 in favor of landscapes, where having extremely shallow DOF isn't really necessary.2. On occasions when I do shoot portraits or people or objects and want a blurry back, I find that f/4 does a decent job. Does it blow out the background as much as f/2.8? No, but most of the time, I want to at least have the background identifiable. F4, especially at the 200mm range, can produce pretty nice bokeh, as see in some of my attached images. Besides, if I really need a brighter aperture, I have the RF 85 f/2 and the EF 50mm f/1.4 - which are both great in this regard.3. Weight and Size! I like to do a lot of hiking and backpacking, and it helps that this lens is considerably smaller and lighter than the f/2.8. I'm quite amazed by the quality of images I get from such a small, light lens at this focal length range. The size is comparable to my RF 24-105 f/4 and thus very convenient to carry around.4. Low light performance. I know that a 2.8 lens will let in more light and thus be better tan an f/4 in low light scenarios, but I considered the fact that my R5 is exceptionally good at higher ISOs. Thus, I calculated that, in events where I needed an extra stop, I could easily bump up the ISO 1 stop. In the event I had to shoot at an ISO that produced more noise than I'd like, well there are many programs that can use AI to greatly reduce noise while not impacting sharpness (Topaz, DXO and now even Lightroom).5. Price. Of course the elephant on the room is the price difference. Even if the f/2.8. I had to ask myself the honest question: Is one-stop better worth an additional $1100 giving what I mostly shoot? The answer, if I'm being honest, is a resounding NO. Now, if I were a wedding photographer who was making money, and they extra stop would produce a bit nicer background blur, then I might consider the f/2.8 version. By the way, with the money I saved buying this lens vice the f/2.8, I was able to buy a refurbished RF 85 f/2 and still had money left over!Conclusion: Unless I were a professional who really had a need for that extra stop of light, I would not buy the 2.8 version over this one. This is a wonderful lens that produced very good images and which meets all of my needs. Honestly, even of the 2.8 were only, say $500 more, I still would have preferred this lens, if for no other eason than for its amazing size and weight. I have had this lens for a few months now and have zero regrets.

Perfect Lens for Me

I've been happily using the EF 70-200 f4 L IS for 11 years, so I decided to treat myself to it's RF replacement. Great idea! This is a fine lens, perfect for my needs. The price point is a lot nicer than the F2.8 version, so if you don't actually NEED that extra f-stop, save the $1000 and the extra pound of weight and get this lens.I've seen reviews that mention a minute, almost undetectable difference in sharpness, but in real world usage, there is nothing to it. Even at f4, its widest aperture, its dead on sharp. Stop down one or 2 stops and it just gets better.It's almost one pound lighter and nearly 2 inches shorter than the f2.8. For me that means that I'm more likely to actually have it with me, even at times when I'm trying to save space and weight.I ... MoreI've been happily using the EF 70-200 f4 L IS for 11 years, so I decided to treat myself to it's RF replacement. Great idea! This is a fine lens, perfect for my needs. The price point is a lot nicer than the F2.8 version, so if you don't actually NEED that extra f-stop, save the $1000 and the extra pound of weight and get this lens.I've seen reviews that mention a minute, almost undetectable difference in sharpness, but in real world usage, there is nothing to it. Even at f4, its widest aperture, its dead on sharp. Stop down one or 2 stops and it just gets better.It's almost one pound lighter and nearly 2 inches shorter than the f2.8. For me that means that I'm more likely to actually have it with me, even at times when I'm trying to save space and weight.I simply haven't found anything negative to say about this lens.

Perfect for my hiking and backcountry lens. Love the size.

Love the smaller size and lighter weight. Perfect compliment for my bag and very crisp photos. After considering the 2.8 vs the 4, I went with the cheaper, smaller and lighter F4 and love my choice and the lens. It usually stays on the camera when not hiking and I can get some nice bird shots around the house or sunrises when I go to the beach. I liked the idea of saving $900 and also feel the quality is amazing for the price. Purchased at Best Buy and waited for a sale to get it at a fair price. Recommend this lens for those on a budget or looking to carry it while traveling/hiking.

The right decision (for me)

When I moved from the 5D Mark IV to the R5, one of the EF lenses I knew I needed to replace was my EF 770-200. I decided on this F4 version over the 2.8 for many reason. First, I do a lot oh backpacking to do landscape photography and I knew that this lens was much smaller and much lighter than the 2.8 version (not to mention my less expensive).I absolutely love this little beast. I may be giving up a stop of light, but it's well worth the price considering the advantages. Besides, my R5 is so good in low light that I can always bump the ISO a stop if need be. The only thing the 2.8 is better at in my opinion, is that it does give slightly better bokeh. But since most of what I shoot with this lens is landscapes, I'm usually stopped down anyway, so the loss of a ... MoreWhen I moved from the 5D Mark IV to the R5, one of the EF lenses I knew I needed to replace was my EF 770-200. I decided on this F4 version over the 2.8 for many reason. First, I do a lot oh backpacking to do landscape photography and I knew that this lens was much smaller and much lighter than the 2.8 version (not to mention my less expensive).I absolutely love this little beast. I may be giving up a stop of light, but it's well worth the price considering the advantages. Besides, my R5 is so good in low light that I can always bump the ISO a stop if need be. The only thing the 2.8 is better at in my opinion, is that it does give slightly better bokeh. But since most of what I shoot with this lens is landscapes, I'm usually stopped down anyway, so the loss of a stop isn't an issue at all.This little lens is very fast focusing and sharp as a tack across the frame. I have zero complaints and for my use cases, I know I made the right decision.

Tried to return it and I simply couldn't

First things first: This lens is too big for daily use with an APS-C sensor. With an effective 112-320mm range, I frequently found myself backed up and unable to take the candids and sweeping landscape shots that I wanted. After a few days with it I purchased its equivalent 24-105 sibling as a replacement with the intent to return this one.However, when you really need the reach of a telephoto lens, nothing else comes close. I've been shooting landscape detail shots from literal miles away, and the crispness is unbelievable. The long reach and wide aperture are even good enough for deep sky astrophotography, providing comparable results to an intermediate-level telescope. (The attached photos are massively compressed due to upload limitations, they are shot at ... MoreFirst things first: This lens is too big for daily use with an APS-C sensor. With an effective 112-320mm range, I frequently found myself backed up and unable to take the candids and sweeping landscape shots that I wanted. After a few days with it I purchased its equivalent 24-105 sibling as a replacement with the intent to return this one.However, when you really need the reach of a telephoto lens, nothing else comes close. I've been shooting landscape detail shots from literal miles away, and the crispness is unbelievable. The long reach and wide aperture are even good enough for deep sky astrophotography, providing comparable results to an intermediate-level telescope. (The attached photos are massively compressed due to upload limitations, they are shot at 6960x4640px and look incredible up close.) I haven't had any wildlife opportunities yet, but it would be a great lens for birding or other fast action shots.I definitely won't be daily driving this lens around my neighborhood, and I can't recommend it for that. But for niche interests it's so wonderful that I can't bear to part with it.

[Rewarded Review] Cheaper, lighter than f2.8 but still as good

Bought this lens for my Canon R6. I am just a hobbyist photographer, and could not justify the f2.8. Also I mostly take photos while traveling and hiking, the f4 is smaller and lighter.If you are a professional, particularly weddings, then you would choose the f2.8 - but if you are a pro you already know that.If you are a hobbyist then it is not worth the extra $1100. The images are still sharp and the backgrounds are beautifully blurred. If you travel or hike you will appreciate the smaller size and lower weight without compromising your images.I also used it for an indoor school event. With the stabilization of the RF lens and R6 I still got great images.Overall very happy.