Camden People’s Theatre in London celebrated its thirty years of existence with a private fundraiser and a show.
Performers who had been nurtured by CPT and gone on to fame in the wider world reprised the first part they performed when CPT gave them their start.
Before performing, each of them talked about the supportive atmosphere at CPT, where artistic expression was respected and valued. They said that that encouragement had given them the confidence to do things in public they never thought they could do.
Then the people behind the scenes outlined what CPT did, and asked the audience to give them money so they could continue doing it. Times are hard, they said, with ventures closing down. So it was all the more important to support CPT.
I was invited to photograph the evening, the social mixing before the show and then the show. I shot everything with the Canon RF 28-70mm f2.8 lens. The lighting was a real mix and low and I shot everything at 6400 ISO. It’s been a while since I have taken photos to someone’s requirements, and in such poor lighting.
A few days ago I tried the Canon RF 24-105mm f4L IS USM lens and I expected it to be great. The man in the shop let me to put the lens on my Canon R6 and I shot off a few frames inside the shop, so the light was mixed. Had the weather outside been better I might have asked to take a shot at least through the open door. But it was very dull and dark and raining so I didn’t.
Well, that and the fact that the man had told me the reason the cameras were behind glass in cases and not on the tables was because of theft. When I say the cameras could have been on the tables, I don’t mean loose on the tables but fastened down with a fixed white grip. Obviously it hadn’t been enough to protect them.
So I photographed one of the men serving in the shop. And when I put the images up on the screen I was shocked (that might be a bit strong of a word) to see that the images looked a bit lifeless. Desperate not to criticise the lens I put it down to the mixed lighting in the shop.
Then earlier today I watched a video of a photographer comparing various Canon RF lenses, and a couple of times he mentioned that the Canon RF 24-105mm f4L IS USM Lens lagged behind the others and that the shots seemed a bit flat and lacking contrast.
On the other hand, everyone says how lovely the Canon RF 28-70mm f2.8 IS STM Lens is.
I am not an impulse buyer when it comes to spending serious money. So I agonised and then agonised again and eventually bought a copy.
The photos that follow are substantial crops, and still you can tell what a good lens it is. This first crop is about one thirteenth of the total area of the frame. I shot the dancer at f/ 3.5, 1/1250 of a second at ISO 1000, and the man standing in the road at fl 2.8, 1/320 of a second atISO 200.
Hey, But
This is where some errant reader among my overwhelmingly intelligent readers thinks that primes are better than zooms so the results can’t be that good. The facts say otherwise.
Modern zoom lenses are not optically inferior to prime lenses, contrary to old beliefs. Primes still have advantages in size and weight, but then to cover the range of focal lengths that the zoom covers you need a bunch of primes. That fact is one of the compelling reason for zooms. The other reason is of course that it does away with having to switch primes all the time.
Maximum aperture, advancements in lens design and materials over the past 50 years have significantly improved zoom lens quality. That applies to primes and to zooms. Beyond a certain point the incremental differences show less and less significant results. The bottom line is that zooms and primes have converged in optical quality to the point that both of them are so good that the differences really don’t dictate one or the other.
Tests and discussions with experienced photographers confirm that, on average, zooms perform as well as primes—sometimes even better. That is not to say that someone might not have a bad copy.
It is an unpalatable fact thatIndividual lens performance varies, and you will only really know by testing to determine whether your lens is superior in quality. What you can do though is to narrow the field and choose a lens manufacturer known for consistent close tolerances.
Fine words, but the Canon RF 24-105mm f4L IS USM Lens disappointed me. Was it the copy I used in the shop? Who knows?
But the Canon RF 28-70mm f2.8 IS STM lens has not disappointed, at least not my copy.
Time was when film compacts had to have a swirl and a curve in the design. They didn’t appeal to me. As far as I was concerned they were old fashioned and didn’t do anything to enhance the functionality of the camera. Here’s a Nikon with a curve to show you what I mean. I wanted to be a serious photographer, and curves that didn’t do anything didn’t seem serious.
High End Film Cameras
What I said about curves only applied to point and shoot compacts. High end cameras didn’t look like that. In fact you could tell they were high end just by the look of them, like this Contax.
Digital
When digital cameras came out, the whole idea of digital was that they were functional and so the designs were much more minimalist and straight lines. Like this Canon. The only nod to the old is the slight curve at the end of the body.
Except Mju
What I said is mostly true, and some curvy cameras were a lot worse than the Nikon. But one film camera that was kind of curvy but still looked good was the Olympus Mju II. Olympus were known for svelte design. And somehow despite the curve, the camera looked the business.
I owned one at one time, but before I got to own one I had a go at owning one that didn’t come off. What happened was this.
I didn’t set out to buy an Olympus Mju II. But I was in New York, on Broadway and looking in camera shops. The store was narrow and deep with a counter running all down the left side. Maybe I asked for a Mju II or maybe the conversation went in that direction. Whichever it was the man got one out and I looked it over. Did I start to haggle or did he just start to come down in price to see at what price I would bite?
It was obvious to me and to him that I was hesitating, and then the price got crazy low. I didn’t know how to ask him without offending him. But this was Broadway, known for cheap goods and probably a lot of knock-offs and fake brands. So I approached the subject in what I hoped was the gentlest of ways. With the price being so low, I asked, do you think there is any possibility that this is not a genuine Olympus?
He didn’t answer me. He just picked up the camera and threw it down the length of the counter to the back of the shop. It was a long throw and he plainly didn’t care whether the camera survived.
I was shocked, disappointed, relieved. My bargain had slipped away. But would it have been a bargain? Now I didn’t have to think about it.
I am English and I was a tourist in New York. The man who served me was maybe Iranian or Iraqi or Egyptian and so his behaviour wasn’t as unexpected as it would have been if he had been from Middle England.
He didn’t order me out of the shop or any anything like that, but I felt my time in the shop was up. I kind of admired the man for not giving a sh*t about offending customers. And then I was out of the shop and laughing.
And to round out this look at curves, here I just one more photo of a curved design in a film camera, this time the Tronic MiniCam KH35. Look at the bump at the end at the top, as though they couldn’t fit the flash in so they added a bit on the corner like an afterthought. This is not a camera that is asking to be taken seriously.
Comparing the specifications of three iterations of the Canon EF 70-200mm F4 lens
EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
Release Date September 1999
Image Stabilization (IS) None
Optical Construction 16 elements in 13 groups
Minimum Focusing Distance 1.2 meters
Maximum Magnification 0.21x
Aperture Blades 8
Filter Diameter 67mm
Dimensions (diameter x length) 76mm x 172mm
Weight 705g
Additional Features Ring-type Ultrasonic Motor (USM) for autofocus; no weather sealing.
EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
Release date November 2006
Image stabilisation up to 4 stops
Optical construction 20 elements in 15 groups
Minimum focusing distance 1.2 meters
Maximum magnification 0.21x
Aperture blades 8
Filter diameter 67mm
Dimensions (diameter x length) 76mm x 172mm
Weight 760g
Ring-type USM for autofocus
Weather-sealed construction.
EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II USM
Release date June 2018
Image stabilization up to 5 stops
Optical construction 20 elements in 15 groups, including 1 fluorite and 2 UD elements
Minimum focusing distance 1.0 meter
Maximum magnification 0.27x
Aperture blades 9
Filter diameter 72mm
Dimensions (diameter x length) 80mm x 176mm
Weight 780g
Enhanced weather sealing
Improved autofocus with a new CPU
Fluorine coatings on front and rear elements
So if we are looking at just the second two iterations, then how much better is the latest version compared to the previous version?
The EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II USM has a 5-stop Image stabiliser with three modes: a mode for general stabilisation for still subjects; a mode for panning; and a mode that activates stabilisation only during the shot. The EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM has a 3-stop image stabiliser with two modes: one for general stabilisation and one for panning.
If I am looking at the lens for use on a Canon EOS R6 or any of the R cameras with in-body image stabilisation, it is on all the time in the camera, so whether it is on on the lens only during the shot seems a redundant consideration.
So then the question is only whether the Mk II lens has better autofocus. How to find out? If it is better, how much better? From reading several reviews I think the difference is not that great.
To get back to the camera I would be using, the obvious question is why not go for the RF mount version. It weighs 695g, so that isn’t enough to sway me one way or the other.
It comes down to money. The Canon RF 70-200mm f4L IS USM is £1,600 new.
A new EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II USM is about the same price. but a second hand lens from a reputable dealer sells for about £650.
It’s even more dramatic with the earlier EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM. It is only available used because it is no longer made, and from a reputable dealer it is about £375.
Of course I would have to buy an EF to RF adapter, which are £119 new at the moment., so add that to the cost.
But if I opt for the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM then I am looking at no more than £500 overall compared to £1,600 for the RF lens – a third of the cost.
If I was buying a workhorse lens and I knew I would be using it for a long time, then maybe I would go for the RF lens. But for an experiment in working with a long lens on full frame it’s a good option.
Alternatives
To muddy the water, Ken Rockwell thinks the Canon 70-300mm IS II is a better lens because it focuses faster (actually instantly), zooms 50% longer and only costs half as much. The 70-300 is also a little lighter and a little shorter.
Ot I could call it a day with Canon and buy a Nikon.
