Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM vs. EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM II

06.02.2026, 13:31 #1

Hobbyfotograf

A firsthand account based on my experience with both lenses…

… I have no intention of publishing a review or promoting any specific lens. I neither have the experience nor the resources for that. What really motivates me is to write a personal experience report in my own words. If you’re interested, feel free to keep reading. Over the next few days, I’ll be sharing my thoughts on the two lenses mentioned above. The plan is to thoroughly test both in a variety of real-world situations. I also warmly invite everyone to contribute and share their own experiences. Please keep the discussion constructive. What I share reflects my impressions, and if you have a different opinion, that’s absolutely your right.

06.02.2026, 13:41 #2

Eric Dittmann

Hobbyfotograf

I've owned the EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM II since 2020. I've used it on both the EOS 6D and the EOS R. Currently, I’m using both lenses on the EOS R5. To extend the focal length up to 400mm, I purchased a 2x II Extender. While it doubles the focal length, it also reduces the lens’s light-gathering ability, making f/5.6 the maximum aperture at 140–400mm. Recently, I also became the owner of the RF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM Z.

But let’s start at the beginning. Both lenses come with a tripod collar, lens hood, and a carrying case.

55081043561

This entry has already been edited

06.02.2026, 13:51 #3

Eric Dittmann

Hobbyfotograf

The technical specifications are as follows (Source: Canon):

Lens RF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM Z EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM II

Image Format Full Frame Full Frame

Angle of View (horizontal / vertical / diagonal) 29° - 10° / 19°30‘ – 7° / 34° - 12° 29° - 10° / 19°30‘ – 7° / 34° - 12°

Optical Construction (elements/groups) 18/15 23/19

Special Features Aperture Ring -- Control Ring Yes No

Number of Aperture Blades 11 8

Minimum Aperture 22 32

Minimum Focus Distance (approx. m) 0.49 (at 70mm) / 0.68 (at 200mm) 1.2

Maximum Magnification 0.3x (at 200mm) 0.21x (at 200mm)

Optical Image Stabilizer Yes Yes AF Motor Dual Nano USM Ring USM

Extender Compatibility Yes, compatible with RF extenders Yes, compatible with EF extenders

Other Accessories Lens Hood LH-E1, Power Zoom Adapter PZ-E2 / PZ-E2B Lens Hood T(BW)

Dust and Splash Resistance Yes Yes

Filter Diameter (approx. mm) 82 77

Dimensions (Diameter x Length, approx. mm) 88.5 x 199 89 x 199

Weight (approx. g) 1,115 1,490

The RF lens is available in both black and white, with the white version featuring a heat-shielding function according to the manufacturer.

This entry has already been edited

06.02.2026, 13:53 #4

Eric Dittmann

Hobbyfotograf

Price is a key factor when choosing a lens. The RF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM Z is currently priced at €3,600. The EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM II is only available used, with good condition models ranging from €800 to €1,250 (both prices as of 02/05/2026). That’s a significant saving. So, if you’re looking purely at the cost, choosing the EF lens means you could save between €2,350 and €2,800.

Note: The EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM II can only be used on an EOS R camera with the EF EOS RF adapter. In my experience, this has always worked flawlessly. More on that later.

06.02.2026, 16:11 #5

Eric Dittmann

Hobbyfotograf

So why spend *that* much more money? Well, let’s take a closer look at the technical specs of both lenses. The first thing that stands out is the weight: EF = 1,490g vs. RF = 1,115g. That’s a difference of 375g. Add the EF/RF adapter, which weighs at least 110g in its smallest version, and you’re looking at 485g—almost a full pound more hanging around your neck. But an extra €2,300 to €2,800 for just 500g less? There has to be more to it, right?

08.02.2026, 11:07 #6

Eric Dittmann

Hobbyfotograf

Secondly, it’s noticeable that the minimum focusing distance has changed. For EF lenses, it’s consistently 1.2m, while for RF lenses, it’s 0.49m at 70mm and 0.68m at 200mm. That’s a significant difference that you’ll definitely notice in practice. This is especially important in product photography, but also in certain portrait situations where you often need to get closer to the subject. Whether you actually need the 70-200mm lens is another question. In fact, the EF lens refuses to focus closer than about 1.2m, whereas with the RF lens, as mentioned, focusing at these closer distances is easily achievable.

14.02.2026, 13:25 #7

Eric Dittmann

Hobbyfotograf

As you can see from the technical specs, the RF lens has more aperture blades than its EF counterpart. So, I expected a more “circular” aperture. More blades = rounder shape = nicer bokeh. But would this actually be noticeable in the bokeh? And how does it affect the starbursts around light sources? To find out, I first looked for scenes where I could photograph both bokeh and aperture stars.
Bokeh:

The results are mixed... When comparing the bokeh shots, I couldn’t really spot a significant difference. The out-of-focus light points at f/2.8 are nicely round with both lenses. Occasionally, some take on a cat-eye shape, but this isn’t consistent or reproducible and happens with both optics. In other shots, the “cat-eye” effect was either absent or appeared in different places.

EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM II at f/2.8, 1/4 sec, ISO 100
RF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM Z at f/2.8, 1/6 sec, ISO 100

I have a portrait shoot scheduled for Sunday, where I’ll test the bokeh with both lenses again.

This entry has already been edited

19.02.2026, 19:29 #8

Eric Dittmann

Hobbyfotograf

Portrait Shooting:

Even though the 70-200mm isn’t traditionally considered a true portrait lens, it definitely has what it takes. Portraits are typically shot around 80–90mm, so this focal range is covered. For this test, I was more interested in how quickly the lens could focus and whether the autofocus performed equally well on both lenses. Things can get hectic on set, after all. So, I asked a colleague to pose as the model for me. And sure enough, the EF lens wasn’t always as spot-on with focus as the RF lens. In my test, the RF lens’s eye autofocus consistently locked precisely on the eyes. The EF lens, on the other hand, sometimes took a moment before hitting the eyes. In two out of 25 shots from the “EF series,” the focus was actually on the camera itself rather than the eyes.

Bokeh in portraits is, of course, a matter of personal taste. What’s important to me is that the eyes and face stand out from the background. Both lenses handled this beautifully. An aperture of f/2.8 can sometimes be a bit much. At f/5.6, both lenses perform really well! The background starts to beautifully blur out around 80mm, while the eyes and face remain razor-sharp. Unfortunately, I haven’t yet received permission from the model to share the images here. Hopefully, that will come through soon.

20.02.2026, 18:47 #9

Erich Kremer

Semiprofi

"Pin-sharp" isn't always desirable for faces—think skin imperfections, pores, and so on—and often you want to create a soft, dreamy atmosphere. Back in the old analog days, photographers would often use a 2x teleconverter for this reason. A 2.8 / 35mm lens with a teleconverter effectively becomes a 70mm lens, but it’s only sharp in the center, which was perfect for those romantic, dreamy portraits.

21.02.2026, 19:47 #10

Eric Dittmann

Hobbyfotograf

Erich, I agree with you—pin-sharp isn’t always the goal. That’s why f2.8 is sometimes the better choice. As I mentioned, both lenses produced very sharp faces in the test at around 80mm and f5.6. If you open the aperture wider, you can already see some softness on the skin of the face. But in this regard, neither lens outperformed the other; their results were essentially the same.

Unfortunately, my friend doesn’t want to share his photos publicly, otherwise I would have shown you.

21.02.2026, 20:41 #11

Erich Kremer

Semiprofi

By the way, the ultimate soft-focus lens is a Minolta 50mm Rokkor adapted to a Canon EF crop sensor camera via a lens adapter. Due to the flange distance, the adapter needs to include an optical element, and this element truly creates beautifully soft portrait images.

21.02.2026, 20:49 #12

Eric Dittmann

Hobbyfotograf

Erich, why don’t you show us a sample photo...

21.02.2026, 21:07 #13

Erich Kremer

Semiprofi

I'll quickly take one with the Rokkor 50 1.4 on the EOS 700D.

21.02.2026, 21:46 #14

Erich Kremer

Semiprofi

21.02.2026, 21:47 #15

Erich Kremer

Semiprofi

21.02.2026, 21:48 #16

Erich Kremer

Semiprofi

It's a doll, but with a normally sharp image, you would also be able to see "skin imperfections" here.

22.02.2026, 20:52 #17

Eric Dittmann

Hobbyfotograf

Hi Erich, as you can see here, the eyes are perfectly sharp in both lenses. In your doll photo, the eyes are missing that final bit of sharpness. And yes, the skin imperfections are meant to be masked by the blur. Still, I’d like the eyes to be really sharp.

Left: EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM II Right: RF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM Z

This entry has already been edited

22.02.2026, 21:10 #18

Eric Dittmann

Hobbyfotograf

Aperture Stars: To capture an aperture star, I pulled out my old Shovel lens. I set it up slightly elevated, lit it from behind with a pinpoint spotlight, and photographed it from the front in the dark using both lenses. I made sure the spotlight didn’t shine directly into the lens. The main challenge was the dust at the location! Shooting in this weather outside was actually counterproductive. You can see the dust swirling in the air in some of the shots. Since the spotlight illuminated it and the exposure time was quite long, it looks like smoke trails.
EF%20Rauchfahnen.jpg

Just a heads-up: I wasn’t able to get aperture stars as stunning as those with the RF 100mm f2.8 L IS USM using the RF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM Z. I did everything I could to set the conditions right, but no luck. The conditions for both 70-200 lenses were the same, though.

EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM II at f16, 22 sec., ISO 200 RF 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM Z at f16, 20 sec., ISO 200

22.02.2026, 21:10 #19

Erich Kremer

Semiprofi

I posted the worst-case scenario (wide open at f/1.4) as a sort of "warning." Stopped down a bit (to f/2.8), the eyes become sharp. That’s actually one of the reasons I bought the Fujifilm GFX 50S — I can mount the Rokkor lenses without any loss in quality, aside from the chromatic aberration that gets amplified by the sensor on those long telephotos.

This entry has already been edited

22.02.2026, 21:23 #20

Eric Dittmann

Hobbyfotograf

Now, whether one aperture star looks "better" is really a matter of personal taste. If you ask me, I really like the ones from the EF lens. However, I can't quite understand why they have that yellowish tint below the motorcycle. I haven't been able to achieve the same crispness as with the RF 100mm f2.8 L IS USM on either of the 70-200mm lenses. All shots were taken at 200mm.

Left: EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM II at f16, 22 sec., ISO 200 Right: RF 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM Z at f16, 20 sec., ISO 200

22.02.2026, 21:25 #21

Eric Dittmann

Hobbyfotograf

Just one more time for comparison: RF 100mm f2.8 L IS USM

However, it was summer then! And there was no dust in the room.

This entry has already been edited

24.02.2026, 19:26 #22

Eric Dittmann

Hobbyfotograf

Test Image:

Of course, a test image is a must. I took a test image from a magazine, pinned it to the magnetic board, and photographed it with both lenses. Once at f 2.8 and once at f 22. Here, too, I didn’t encounter any major surprises. The differences between the two lenses are not really noticeable to me.

EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM II at f2.8, 1/250 sec., ISO-100 EF2.8_3887b.jpg

RF 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM Z at f2.8, 1/250 sec., ISO-100 RF2.8_3878b.jpg

Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM vs. EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM IICanon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM vs. EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM IICanon RF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM Z gegen EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM II

Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM vs. EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM II