Canon EOS R3 Review

Dustin Abbott

December 13th, 2021

The Canon EOS R5 (my review here) and EOS R6 (my review here) cameras showed that Canon was serious about the full frame mirrorless space. The former remains one of the best jack-of-all-trades cameras ever made, possibly bested only by the extremely expensive Sony Alpha 1 (my review here). The EOS R6 was a very effective budget sports and general purpose camera, with great tracking abilities that equaled the far more expensive EOS R5. But what Canon didn’t have (and few other companies have either) is a high end pro sports mirrorless body with an integrated battery grip design. Canon has solved that with the release of the Canon EOS R3, a 1D style camera but with all of Canon’s latest mirrorless tricks…and a few new ones.

The large, bulky integrated grip design definitely polarizes the audience. For some photographers this is the only style of camera body that they like. They prefer the redundant controls for vertical shooting, the battery life that gets them thousands of images between charges, and the robust weather sealing that only such a large body can afford (Canon touts 1DX III levels of weather sealing on the EOS R3). Other photographers find such a camera body unnecessarily heavy and bulky and far more difficult to transport. It’s certainly true that your carrying solutions are vastly limited when your camera is this much larger than the moderately sized Canon EOS R5.

But the EOS R3 takes Canon’s sports technology to new levels, featuring a brand new 24MP backlit stacked CMOS sensor and an incredible 30FPS burst rate. Both the resolution and burst rate bests any 1D series camera, and the kind of images you can effortlessly get with the EOS R3 is enough to put a smile on anyone’s face:

This image was one of many in yet another 30FPS burst, and most impressive is that this shot was captured when the charging dog was almost too close for me to capture anymore. Just a few frames later she was completely out of frame. This may be the best autofocusing camera I’ve ever used, and that is compounded by a very innovative new feature – Eye Control AF, where the camera literally focuses on whatever your eye is looking at. While your experience using this technology may vary, my personal experience was that I loved it. It essentially took the place of my putting a finger on the screen and overriding the default focus position…except this was faster and more intuitive. I literally focused on this dried plant by looking at it…

The EOS R3 won’t be for everyone. It’s far more camera in terms of both size and performance than many people need, and it’s price point of nearly $6000 USD ($8000 CDN here in Canada) dictates that this is a camera that few photographers can afford as well. But for certain photographers, the EOS R3 will be the camera they have been desperately looking for. You can watch my long format definitive review or shorter standard review to see my thoughts…or just read on.

Thanks to Camera Canada for quickly getting an EOS R3 loaner for me. I’ve purchased both my Canon EOS R5 and Alpha 1 from them, and they’ve provided top notch customer service. If you are in Canada, be sure to check them out!

Canon EOS R3 Features and Specification

Here’s a quick look at some of the highlights from the EOS R3:

24MP Full-Frame Stacked BSI CMOS Sensor
Dual Pixel CMOS AF II, Eye Control AF
6K60 Raw and 4K120 10-Bit Internal Video
30 fps E. Shutter, 12 fps Mech. Shutter
Digic X Processor
Native ISO range of range from ISO 100-102400 (expandable to ISO 50-204800)
Top shutter speed (electronic) of 1/64,000th
5.76m-Dot EVF with 120 fps Refresh Rate
3.2″ 4.2m-Dot Vari-Angle Touchscreen LCD
Sensor-Shift 5-Axis Image Stabilization
Multi-Function Shoe, Built-In Vert. Grip
CFexpress & SD UHS-II Memory Card Slots
Wired LAN and 5 GHz Wi-Fi Support

While the Sony Alpha 1 pioneered some of the high end specs we see here, the EOS R3 has some unique tricks up its bulky sleeves, including a killer touchscreen, deeper buffers, and that Eye Control AF that we mentioned. First, however, let’s take a look at the physical design of the camera.

We saw previously that the EOS R3 dwarfs the more standard EOS R5, but the truth of the matter is that this camera is actually considerably smaller than a 1Dx:

It is actually 8mm narrower and a whopping 25mm shorter, and weighs 425g less. That makes it about 19% smaller than the 1DX MKIII. I’m not sure that’s enough to entice those who prefer the standard single grip design, but that 425g difference is enough to seriously feel during a long day of shooting. Let’s not oversell it, though. At 150 x 142.6 x 87.2 mm (WxHxD) and 1015g, this is a seriously big camera.

You may have noticed that beautiful articulating (Vari-Angle) LCD screen swung around for front monitoring. For years I saw arguments in photography message boards that Canon didn’t put the vari-angle screens on their high end cameras because they weren’t robust enough for professional use. I always found that argument to be silly, and it seems Canon is there, too. Canon’s articulating touchscreens are the best in the business, and they have put their best yet on the EOS R3. It’s a big, high resolution screen; 3.2″ and an amazing 4.2m-Dot resolution (the highest I’ve seen in a rear camera LCD). That easily bests the 2.1m dot resolution of the EOS R5’s screen, and let’s not even talk about the A1’s pathetic 1.44m dot resolution screen (a sore spot for me!) This amazing screen makes your images pop when you review them, and I love the flexibility of Canon’s touchscreens. They are more responsive than any other camera brand’s screens to touch, and the vari-angle design means that they work will in both horizontal and vertical shooting positions. I love the LCD on the EOS R3.

The physical controls are essentially a mixture between the 1Dx MKIII and the EOS R5. The back has a lot of the similar design to the 1D (sans the lower LCD screen), with redundant controls for horizontal and vertical shooting positions along with the “Smart Controllers” located on the redundant AF-On buttons. These can be pushed like buttons, but if you rub your finger across them they allow you to (for example) move an AF point around. This works better than the typical touch control on the LCD screen when you are shooting in the vertical orientation.

Like the EOS R5, we have the standard 5 series joystick (x2 here) along with the standard Canon pro camera rear wheel. I like the rear wheel because it gives you three functional control dials PLUS the control ring on the lens. That’s four potential control dials, which gives you a lot of physical control…and you can customize the functions to suit your personal workflow. I really, really enjoy the physical control scheme here. Everything is well situated, moves wells, and just generally works, though with a larger camera it typically works best if you have larger hands.

If you look at the photo above, you’ll note that there is a visible video record button on the back of the EOS R3. The EOS R5 has that record button on the top plate of the camera, but the EOS R3 has it in the same position often used by Sony. What I really like here, though, is that there’s also a switch that allows you to quickly toggle between video and stills function. You have to use the electronic mode button on the EOS R5 to make that switch, and I find the process less logical than a simple switch. I prefer the setup on the EOS R3.

One thing I don’t like is the ON/OFF/LOCK button that is located about two thirds of the way down the back. It doesn’t fall easily to hand, and if you are trying to turn it on with the thumb of your right hand while holding the grip (which would be the natural way in the standard shooting position with your left hand supporting and operating the lens), it requires some true thumb gymnastics, as you need to push the back of switch down. Trying to do this while wearing gloves is even more miserable. I’m also not partial to the position of the Playback, Magnify, and Delete buttons. These are all more conveniently placed on the EOS R5.

A look at the front of the camera reveals a lot of controls. There are are two sets of custom buttons to the right of the lens mount. A pair of these are nominally DOF preview buttons, but they can be programmed to other functions. There are also a pair of M-Fn 2 buttons which are designed to be programmed to a function of your choice. Most buttons on the EOS R3 can be programmed to a different purpose if you so desire. I’ll note that ergonomically these buttons (particularly the lower two) can be a serious reach due to the thick grip unless you have very large hands. On the other side of the lens mount is a N3 style remote release port. Above that is the standard Canon lens release button. Canon continues to employ the very valuable protection screen over the sensor while changing lenses, a feature that Sony has finally copied on the Alpha 1.

The top view of the EOS R3 looks fairly similar to the EOS R5 with a little more space and a few minor tweaks. Canon continues to employ the useful LCD screen on top, an electronic mode dial (which is fine once you get used to it) that is surrounded by the top wheel for controlling shutter speed, aperture, or whatever else you program it to. There are two buttons on the right side, and an additional two on the left side of the hotshoe. Canon has followed Sony’s lead and the hotshoe is now a “multi-function” shoe that can also serve to record digital audio through certain mics.

A look at the left side of the camera shows a number of ports underneath nicely sealed covers. You’ll find Hi-Speed USB (USB Type-C 3.2 Gen 2), Ethernet (RJ-45), HDMI micro OUT terminal Type D (clean HDMI output, resolution switches automatically, CEC not compatible, images can be simultaneously displayed through the HDMI output and on-screen), a 3.5mm microphone input, 3.5mm stereo output (headphone jack), and a PC Terminal. The EOS R3 can be charged via the USB-C connection, but, like the other Canon R series cameras, it requires a charging source with “Power-Send” technology, which unfortunately severely limits what you can use to charge the camera.

Much like the EOS R5, there are two memory card slots beneath a nicely engineered door on the right side of the camera. One is for a CFExpress type B, which gives you massive amounts of potential speed, and a second UHS-II compatible SD/SDHC/SDXC slot. I’m personally using Sony Tough cards for both the CFExpress and SD cards. These have been my cards of choice for the past few years, and I’ve had nothing but flawless performance from them.

I don’t love the fact that CFExpress Type B has not become a standard new media format. My Sony Alpha 1 wants CFExpress Type A cards, which are completely different. Unless manufacturers really coalesce around one particular format, it will be some time (if ever) before we see CFExpress card slots on laptops or in monitors and other such devices that make our workflow simpler. SD has been incredibly convenient for a long time for the simple reason that it became a media standard.

We have a great viewfinder here that may just allow 1DX shooters to forget their optical viewfinders. This is one of my favorite EVFs so far, with both high resolution (5.76 million dot) and the ability to choose a high refresh rate (120FPS) for smooth, fluid tracking of action. This comes at the cost of battery life, but it’s easy to just engage the additional refresh rate for the moments when you need it. It feels like we are getting very close to achieving the clarity of an optical viewfinder but with all the myriad advantages of an electronic viewfinder. It’s great! If you enable the Eye Control AF, you will go through a brief calibration process that might remind you of a visit to an optometrist. It mostly consists of looking at a red dot as it moves to different positions. I had an easy time calibrating it, but your mileage may vary depending on a certain glasses prescription or contact style. The viewfinder specs seems to be the same as the EOS R5 (0.5″, 5.76 million dot), but the viewfinder is externally larger and looks different because of the Eye Control AF tech.

The EOS R3 uses the larger LP-E19 battery style used in the 1Dx. It is a larger capacity battery (2700 mAh lithium). The R5 uses a smaller 2130 mAh battery. The larger battery allows for a much higher shot rating than the EOS R5. If you use the EVF, the LC-E19 is rated for approximately 620 shots (73°F/23°C) in power saving mode and 440 shots in smooth mode. If you use the rear LCD those numbers increase to 960 and 870. To give some perspective, the EOS R5’s battery is rated for only 320 shots using the EVF. Your results are going to wildly varying depending on what you are doing the with the camera. I’m nearly 1000 shots in and my battery still shows nearly fully charged, but about three quarter of those shots were bursts tracking a running dog. I wouldn’t be surprised if you could get thousands of shots from one battery charge in that kind of scenario, but buying a backup is always a good idea.

Canon was slow to the party in adopting In-Body-Image-Stabilization (sensor stabilization). They kept making the argument that lens-stabilization was superior as it could be tailored for the unique needs of that particular lens. There are probably merits to that argument, but the point was often moot, as about half of Canon’s early RF-mount lenses didn’t have IS (Image Stabilization). My long experience with Sony’s IBIS is that some stabilization trumps no stabilization every time. Canon has found a way to effectively marry their sensor stabilization (IBIS) with the lens stabilization (IS) on their lenses and deliver truly incredible amounts of stabilization, and Canon claims up to 8 stops of stabilization with certain lenses that also utilize IS (and even a few that don’t!) I don’t ever actually see results quite that good, but Canon’s IBIS is genuinely excellent. A great case in point was when using the slightly difficult Irix 150mm F2.8 Macro. It’s a great lens if you’re on a tripod, but the combination of that long focal length along with being manual focus only meant that it was difficult to use handheld. But Canon’s IBIS holds things nice and steady while you focus, and I was able to get a good result at 1/20th of a second near macro distances:

That’s about three stops of assistance, though macro adds its own demands. Moving to a more distant target allowed me to get down to 1/10th second handheld (4 stops), which is pretty impressive for what I consider to to be a difficult combination. What’s important, though, is not that I wanted to try to shoot 1/10th of a second shots with this combination, but rather that I can get a nice, stable viewfinder while I focus and then get an effectively stabilized result in a more typical 1/60th-1/100th range. It’s worth noting that this along with Canon’s innovative “Focus Guide” makes manual focus perhaps more fun that I’ve ever experienced previously.

Using the Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS I was able to get easily repeatable results of 1/6th second handheld at 200mm (five stops) like this one:

I suspect I could get another stop or two lower if I were so inclined. I also noted that when I used the Canon EF 35mm F1.4L II for video work, I was able to get nicely stabilized results that were dramatically worse if I turned off the IBIS. There’s no question that Canon has nailed their IBIS system in their newest cameras.

The EOS R3 utilizes a new texture in the grips that looks a pretty cool and is highly functional. I find the grip more comfortable to hold in the traditional mode as the vertical grip isn’t quite as ergonomically contoured and you have to contend with the flat bottom plate about midway through your palm. If you like the larger integrated vertical grip style body, I suspect you will really like the ergonomics of the EOS R3. Canon does ergonomics well, and the EOS R3 is loaded with features and controls in its professionally weather-sealed magnesium alloy body.

EOS R3 Autofocus

The EOS R3 builds on the excellent autofocus of the EOS R5 but with a higher end sports refining. We’ve got a 5,940 AF Point, Dual Pixel CMOS AF II system with 1053 available AF zones. It has the EOS ITR AF X deep learning AI focus harvested from the top of the line 1Dx MKIII, and adds vehicle detect to the human and animal eye detect of the EOS R5. This mode is designed for photographers that capture motorsports, and will not only track the vehicle but look for the driver’s head in the vehicle.

Autofocus sensitivity is reaching absurd levels, enabling focus in as little light as -7.5 EV. That is pretty dark – like focusing in the light of a sliver of moon. It can also focus at +20 EV (incredibly bright conditions), which means that the EOS R3 can theoretically focus in an unbelievable 27.5 stops of lighting conditions. Wow! Add to this that the EOS R3 can also focus with maximum apertures as small as F22 (remember when the 5D Mark IV’s F8 was a big deal?), allowing teleconverters to be used with very slow-aperture lenses like the new RF 600mm F11 IS STM and RF 800mm F11 IS STM. I’m not sure how important those marginal performances are to most people, but what it really means is that there are basically no “normal” situations a photographer will find themselves in where the EOS R3 will not be able to effectively focus. Even using the lowly RF 50mm F1.8 STM, I was able to get an accurate autofocus of my youngest in the dark (this is ISO 102,400). Focus wasn’t fast, but it would have better with a wider aperture lens like the RF 50mm F1.2L.

The fact that I was able to accurately autofocus in a situation where I could barely see him was pretty impressive. A more typical ISO 4000 type lighting situation was effortless:

But this is a sports camera, so I spent a fair amount of time testing and analyzing high speed bursts. I used both a native RF 70-200mm F4L IS USM along with my venerable Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II via adapter (which works better than ever, by the way!). I compared the EOS R5 and Sony Alpha 1 under the same conditions to see just how good the EOS R3 really is.

It is very, very good.

First of all, you have a blackout free 30 frames per second via the electronic shutter, with 12 FPS if you use the mechanical shutter, though there is increasingly less and less reason to use the mechanical shutter. The mechanical shutter is limited to 1/8000th second shutter speeds, but the electronic shutter allows insane speeds of up to 1/64,000th of a second. It used to be that you couldn’t get decent flash sync speeds with electronic shutters and things like anti-flicker only worked with the mechanical shutter, but neither of these things are true anymore. You can get flash sync speeds of up to 1/180th second with the electronic shutter, while the mechanical Shutter gives you 1/200 sec (up to 1/250th with electronic 1st curtain). Anti-flicker works with the electronic shutter, and the high readout speed of the camera mostly eliminates things like rolling shutter. You can turn off the sound of the shutter altogether if you like in electronic mode, and no active shutter means less vibration and wear and tear (though the shutter is rated up to 500,000 actuations!)

The blazing frame rate allows you to capture many more images in the same amount of time that you could with the EOS R5 and its 20 FPS, and you get deeper buffers to boot. The EOS R3 compares favorably even to the Sony Alpha 1 in the latter regard, though, to be fair, the Alpha 1 is capturing images at an incredible 50 MP.

Canon EOS R3	Canon EOS R5	Sony Alpha 1
540 JPEG	350 JPEG	400 JPEG
150 RAW (420 CRAW)	87 RAW (180 CRAW)	238 RAW

It’s easy to record hundreds of images in a single burst, and the incredible focus system ensures that they are well focused images:

In my tracking sequences I noted that I instinctively preferred the experience of tracking with the EOS R3 compared to either of the other cameras. Both other cameras track extremely well, but the experience through the viewfinder is most compelling with the EOS R3. It’s visual cues in the viewfinder when tracking are more intuitive and make you feel more connected to the action. I also noted that I never saw any actual buffering. I could shoot 140 images in a burst and it seemed like the camera was instantly ready for more.

This nailed shot was at 400mm via the EF 100-400L II:

Eye Control AF seemed useful even when tracking, as my eye would instinctively follow the sometimes erratic movement of the subject, though I suspect the AI tracking would follow the subject anyway.

Eye AF also works a charm, with instant real-time lock on the eyes that stays locked on as you move the camera around or your subject moves. If you miss focus when doing a portrait session, something is wrong! In this shot my cat’s eye was barely visible, but Eye Detect grabbed the eye and delivered a perfectly focused result.

A note on the practical applications of using Eye Control AF. I found this a nice substitute for overriding focus on the touchscreen when autofocus doesn’t initially grab my desired subject. It’s faster and more intuitive, though I found the same limitation that I find with the other technique – sometimes the camera just doesn’t want to grab a foreground object when it is locked already on a background object. Just looking at the right area doesn’t do it. Sometimes I need to first focus on the ground nearby or some other technique to pull focus into the right zone. I do find Eye Control AF nicely intuitive in most situations, but there are still limitations.

Bottom line is that in every metric, this is one of the best focus systems in the world. It’s fast, flexible, accurate, and easy to maximize. The focus system, burst rate, buffer, and tracking capabilities of the Canon EOS R3 are all top notch. This is a camera equally good for portrait, event, wildlife, and sports photographers and takes the excellent autofocus of the R5 to the next level.

EOS R3 Video Specs and Performance

Canon has given us video specs somewhere between the 1DX III and the EOS R5. We don’t have the 8K options that the EOS R5 has (and also that caused its overheating issues!), but we do have a plethora of 6K video options along with very robust 4K options. These include:

Raw 12-Bit
6K (6000 x 3164) at 23.976p/24.00p/25p/29.97p/50p/59.94p [720 to 2600 Mb/s]
H.265/MP4 4:2:2 10-Bit
DCI 4K (4096 x 2160) at 23.976p/24.00p/25p/29.97p/50p/59.94p/100p/119.88p [85 to 1880 Mb/s]
UHD 4K (3840 x 2160) at 23.976p/25p/29.97p/50p/59.94p/100p/119.88p [85 to 1880 Mb/s]
Full HD (1920 x 1080) at 23.976p/25p/29.97p/50p/59.94p/100p/119.88p [28 to 470 Mb/s]
H.264/MP4 4:2:0 8-Bit
DCI 4K (4096 x 2160) at 23.976p/24.00p/25p/29.97p/50p/59.94p/100p/119.88p
UHD 4K (3840 x 2160) at 23.976p/25p/29.97p/50p/59.94p/100p/119.88p
Full HD (1920 x 1080) at 23.976p/25p/29.97p/50p/59.94p/100p/119.88p

Thus far there has been no reports of heating issues, though your CFExpress card will get plenty hot if you’re recording at the more demanding formats.

We also have gotten away from the 29:59 recording limit that I see on the top of my EOS R5. Instead you will see whatever limit that comes from the combination of your chosen video format and the size of storage that you have in the camera. In 4K30, my 128GB card shows nearly 2 1/2 hours of recording time. If you use the Raw 12 bit format, however, expect to see that recording time drop drastically. In Raw 4K120, for example, that same card shows 8 minutes of recording time.

Video quality is excellent. Autofocus tracking is excellent and extremely reliable (I spend a lot of time in front of the camera for my YouTube channel, so effective tracking matters to me). You can choose between UHD 4K (3840×2160) or DCI (4096 x 2160) if you want a slightly more cinematic look. You can choose an APS-C mode if you want a tighter framing. You can choose different bitrates and formats. You can shoot timelapse movies at different resolutions or high resolution slow-motion footage. 6K footage is available at up to 60FPS, though you’ll need to utilize a CFExpress card to unlock 6K.

All of Canon’s LOG and HDR-PQ options are available on the EOS R3 as well. I don’t necessarily see videographers choosing a camera like this for their primary video work, but this is a very capable video camera.

Canon EOS R3 Sensor Performance

The Canon EOS R3 gives us another new Canon sensor (which used to be exceedingly rare!) In this case we get a new 24Mp back illuminated stacked CMOS sensor with a broader ISO range than previous Canon sensors. DXOMark has given this new sensor their highest score ever for a Canon sensor, which is saying something, since historically they haven’t been particularly kind to Canon sensors. This kind of sensor architecture (back illuminated, stacked CMOS at 24 MP) is very similar to what’s found in the Sony a9 series, but what we’ve got here is better executed. The a9/a9II sensor actually underperforms the equivalent sensor found in the a7III/A7C cameras in some metrics (high ISO performance and dynamic range), but that’s not true of the R3’s sensor.

I’m fairly familiar with the 24 MP resolution level after owning the original a9 for years (until I upgraded to the Alpha 1), and for many things it is plenty of resolution…though I will confess that you get accustomed to having higher resolution when you shoot regularly with it. There’s plenty of detail in the 24 MP EOS R3 sensor to capture a bad cat feeling completely comfortable on the kitchen table:

ISO Performance

I’ll start this section by stating a simple truth: I think the EOS R3 has the best high ISO performance I’ve ever seen from a Canon camera. I always like to look at Photon to Photos comparison charts for various sensors, and I was unsurprised after my sensor tests to find that the dynamic range of the EOS R3 was fairly comparable to the EOS R5 at typical ISO levels, but it showed an advantage as the ISO level climbed to 1000 and higher. I also found that the image quality held up at higher ISO settings where many cameras are falling apart.

Let me add as a caveat that the best way to interactively see the deep dive into sensor performance is by watching those sections in the definitive video review here.

There is very little penalty for increasing ISO in terms of noise, color saturation, or loss of contrast if you compare ISO 1600 to ISO 6400 at a global level.

Even at a pixel level, one must look very critically to find places where the image quality is eroded. I can see some faint pattern noise in the shadows.

All things considered, though, that’s very clean.

Moving up another few stops to ISO 25,600 (which I often consider the practical ISO limit these days) shows that there is definitely much more noise in the shadows, though there is no discoloration or banding. There’s only a mild drop-off compared to ISO 12,800 (which looks fantastic).

It used to be that digital cameras were absolute garbage at ISO 25,600, but that’s just not the case here. This is still a very usable image for many applications, and that helps a lot on a sports/wildlife oriented camera where you often don’t get to work in the kind of light you would prefer and need to stop action (which means getting the shutter speeds up!).

We can go on into extreme levels at ISO 51,200 and 102,400 (the top end of the native range).

102,400 is really breaking down, but 51,200 could actually be used in a pinch. If I standardize the fairly good performance of the EOS R5 at ISO 51,200 (it’s natural limit) to the roughly 6000 x 4000 resolution of the EOS R3, we can see that even viewed globally the difference is obvious.

The EOS R3 has clearly better black levels, contrast, and color saturation with less appearance of noise. Downsampling a higher resolution body like what I’ve done often produces some advantage for the higher resolution body, but this is clearly an area of strength for the EOS R3.

Jumping into a pixel level highlights those differences even further.

You can see how much better the contrast is on the EOS R3, and, while you have some visible noise pattern, it looks largely like film grain and not particularly objectionable. No color banding or tint.

If I compare the other 30 FPS camera I have on hand, the Sony Alpha 1, we find that on a global level the Sony has nice black levels like the EOS R3 at ISO 51,200, but there has been some color shift with a light green cast to everything.

I’ve downsampled to the EOS R3’s resolution here as well, so let’s go into a pixel and see what we find.

I see better contrast on the EOS R3 along with better color accuracy, though the noise levels on the Alpha 1 are competitive. Both cameras are delivering nice detail even at this very high ISO level. It’s worth noting that there is some variation in ISO tuning, as though I used the same lens and the same settings on both cameras, the EOS R3 (and R5) consistently needed one-third of a stop less light to achieve the same levels.

The Sony does have one advantage, however, and that is if we look at the pure shadows around our subjects. While both cameras have nicely deep shadows still, the EOS R3 has a radial banding pattern in the shadows at a pixel level that the Alpha 1 does not. It’s shadow areas are just a little cleaner as a result.

I still give the overall win to the Canon EOS R3, though, and can state with confidence that this is the best low light camera that Canon has ever produced. When you combine its stunning ISO capabilities with the amazing sensitivity of the autofocus you have a camera very well equipped to handle the pressures of less than ideal lighting. That’s huge if your livelihood depends on you getting those shots in that kind of environment!

Dynamic Range

We saw in our Photons to Photos comparison that there is some give and take in dynamic range between the EOS R3 and EOS R5, but that both cameras are easily Canon’s best yet in this regard. The EOS R3 is going to give you great latitude for drawing out detail in the shadows, and even fairly good performance in the highlights. See how easily this image recovered for me:

While I find it a little hard to assign a rating in stops to dynamic range through my tests, I do have a highly repeatable scenario that clearly shows me a camera’s capability to cleanly recover shadows and highlights.

I benchmarked the EOS R5 and the Sony Alpha 1 once again for these tests (for those wishing I chose some other camera to compare to: I chose these for a simple reason: these are the two main cameras that I personally own!) I had only a week with the EOS R3, and so not a lot of time to get any other comparison point.

The Canon EOS R3 is fabulous at recovering shadows. You can take a deeply underexposed (four stop) image and recover it completely and very almost no penalty:

At a pixel level, you can barely even see any noise in the shadows or in the table textures where they most strongly show.

That’s the practical limit, though. If we compare the 4 stop recovered image (left) with a 5 stop recovered image (right), we can see that the image is starting to fall apart.

There’s less contrast, some blotchy textures, and a magenta color shift.

But for some perspective, the EOS R5’s image at that five stop recovery looks obviously worse even at a global level:

The Alpha 1 takes a win here, however, as while it has a very slight green shift, it retains better contrast and cleaner textures at the five stop recovery level (remember there is a slight variation in base ISO sensitivity, which results in the one-third stop different shutter speeds).

On the other end of the spectrum (highlight recovery) we find that the limitations arrive faster (as they always do). The practical limit is somewhere between 2 and 3 stops of recovery. At 2 stops, the recovery is pretty close to flawless:

There are no unrecovered “hot spots” and colors and luminosity look natural.

By three stops, however, some problems have started to appear relative to the 2 stop recovery on the left:

The timer face has lost some color and has a slightly unnatural look, some of the color swatches are disappearing, and the contrast on the “Honeywell Pentax” camera body has been lost. The bottom book spine looks washed out. You might get away with this for certain subjects, but few people would be happy with that end result. By four stops the image looks like garbage.

So how does this compare? Let’s look at the Sony first:

It used to be that Sony cameras blew Canon cameras away in this metric, but we can see here that they are fairly close now. I think the Sony has retained slightly better contrast, but they both look pretty close on the color swatches now. I’d even argue that the Canon has retained slightly better saturation in some of those swatches. This really shows me how far Canon has come with dynamic range in its sensors.

Finally, a look at a comparison with the EOS R5:

Here are base ISO (100) I think the EOS R5 is the overall winner. It retains similar amount of color to the EOS R3, but contrast is better. You can see that in the camera face and the spine of the books. When examining at a pixel level, I can also see that more information has been retained near the hotspots. This is essentially what Photons to Photos showed in their chart, where the EOS R5 has a (very) slight advantage through ISO 400 and then the EOS R3 consistently outperforms it at higher ISO settings. When you consider the better shadow recovery, however, I would argue that the EOS R3 is every bit as good at dynamic range as the EOS R5, and, in some total, as good as the Alpha 1 as well. That’s great for a camera utilizing a stacked sensor with high readout, and is evidence that Canon has one-upped the 24MP Sony sensors in the A9 series…for now.

Resolution

Probably the main bone of contention myself and others have had with the 20MP sensor in the EOS R6 (which was pretty much the same as the one in the 1DX III) was the limits of its resolution. 24MP is a more palatable figure, and I used the original a9 for years and was in most situations satisfied with its resolution. Canon does give you a variety of choices in file formats. You have a RAW or CRaw option (Compressed RAW). The CRaw option takes up less space (due to the compression), but is actually still 24MP. On average, CRaw will save you about 40% on average in storage size, and, like Sony’s Compressed vs Uncompressed), you are unlikely to spot the difference except in the most extreme of situations.

This makes for nicely compact file sizes. I saw an average of between 11-12MB per .CR3 image, with the high end being very high ISO images at roughly 18MB. What’s interesting is that I typically convert my files to DNG in Lightroom to standardize them, and typically the file size reduces a bit in the process. Ironically the size of the files actually GROWS by converting them to DNG because the .CR3 standard is so efficient. On this shot, for example, the .CR3 size was only 7.9 MB, but the .DNG file was nearly 17 MB. That creates a compelling reason to stay with .CR3!

On the JPEG front, you can choose between JPEG and HEIF (High Efficiency Image File) formats. HEIF is the standard Apple is using now, and it takes up less space than JPEG. The EOS R3 also supports HDR PQ HEIF 10-bit high dynamic range files if you want to shoot a simple format and get good dynamic range out of it. Even standard JPEGs look pretty great, though. Here’s one right out of camera:

Less valuable here is the 1.6x APS-C mode. This can often be useful for a little more reach or if you want to use APS-C lenses on your full frame body. The EOS R5 leaves you with a fairly useful 17 MP in APS-C mode, but the lower resolution of the EOS R3 means that only 9.3 MP is left over after that crop, which isn’t nearly as useful. That highlights the basic problem with lower resolution cameras in general; 24 MP is enough if you don’t need to crop much, but there certainly isn’t the deep cropping options you have with high resolution bodies. It’s a little more important with the EOS R3 to have a lens with sufficient reach than it is on the EOS R5, where you have the capability to crop in the equivalent of 21 MP before you reach the resolution of the EOS R3.

I found colors to be typical Canon excellent. Good, natural saturation levels and accurate colors. I generally enjoy the images out of the EOS R3.

All told, this is a very good new sensor that is pretty much a perfect pairing for an action oriented camera. The smaller file size means that you can shoot big bursts without being overwhelmed, and the lower pixel count on the sensor allows those pixels to be quality ones that will result in very clean images at higher ISO values. I would recommend a visit to the image galleries to see photos taken with a wide variety of lenses.

Conclusion

The Canon EOS R3 is the camera that a certain crowd was most definitely looking for. It’s hard to say what the future of DSLRs is, as most of the development energy seems to be on mirrorless at this point. But the EOS R3 is a crucial camera if Canon wants to get working professionals out of their DSLRs and into mirrorless…and all of those nice, shiny, expensive RF mount lenses. The EOS R3 brings some genuine innovation to the 1D series design, including the Eye Control AF, in body image stabilization, and a faster burst rate than any 1D body has ever seen. 30FPS means that you have plenty of opportunities to choose the perfect frame:

If you put the EOS R3 and the Sony Alpha 1 together, the Sony looks like (by far) the cheaper camera even though it costs about $500 more. It is basically the same size as all of Sony’s other full frame mirrorless models, while the EOS R3 looks like the high end sports camera that it is. Ironically, however, this suits me just fine. I like the compact nature of the Alpha 1 (though the EOS R5 is my favorite camera in the hand) and have no interest personally in the larger body. If you’re the kind of person that prefers your big investments to look like a big investment, then the EOS R3 definitely will fit the bill. It’s a pro-grade camera that looks and handles seriously pro-grade.

At the end of the day, however, this is not a camera for everyone. It’s too big, too heavy, and too expensive. It’s strengths are overkill for many photographers, and I doubt it will ever sell at the levels of cameras like the EOS R5 or R6. But that’s okay, as this is a specialist tool. You can shoot this kind of photo with many kinds of cameras:

But you can’t capture photos like this with just any camera:

If you’re the kind of photographer that needs the latter, then Canon has probably created pretty much the perfect camera for you. It tracks effortlessly and has the kind of low light performance that will enable the shots at the margins than many lesser cameras will miss. And that might just be worth six thousand bucks for you!

Pros:

One of the best action/sports cameras ever made
Great ergonomics – combination of 1D and R5 strengths
Canon’s IBIS system is excellent
Fabulous focus system that takes tracking to the next level
Eye Control AF isn’t a gimmick – it really works
Amazing focus sensitivity
Fantastic viewfinder – option for smooth tracking is useful
Articulating touchscreen is higher resolution than ever and highly responsive
Great buffer depth and instant buffer clearing
Great number of video options and resolutions
Excellent ISO performance and dynamic range from new sensor

Cons:

The ON/OFF button is inconveniently placed
Custom buttons on front may be hard to access for those with smaller hands
2 out of my 3 third party lenses don’t work properly on the R3
Size and price dictates a niche market

Gear Used:

Purchase a Canon EOS R3 @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Purchase a Canon EOS R5 @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Purchase a Canon EOS R6 @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Buy DA Merchandise https://bit.ly/TWIMerch

Purchase the Sony Alpha 1 @ Camera Canada | B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Peak Design Leash Strap: Peak Design Store | B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK

Adobe Photoshop Creative Cloud 1-Year Subscription
Exposure Software X6 (Use Code “dustinabbott” to get 10% anything and everything)
Visit Dustin’s Amazon Storefront and see his favorite gear

Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. You can also make a donation here if you would like. Visit my Amazon page for some of my gear of choice! Thank you for your support.

Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52018DA in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!

Keywords: Canon EOS R3, EOS, R3, EOS R3, mirrorless, full frame, EOS R3 Review, Canon R3 Review, Canon EOS R3 Review, Dustin Abbott, Real World, Comparison, Handling, Dynamic Range, Tracking, Focus, Burst Rate, Tracking, Sports, Portraits, Resolution, High ISO, Image Quality, Sample Images, Photography, Dogs, Ergonomics, 24Mp, Sony a9, Sony Alpha 1, Canon EOS R5, RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS, RF 15-35mm F2.8L IS, Canon Letthelightin

DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Canon EOS R3 Image Gallery

Dustin Abbott

December 12th, 2021

The Canon EOS R5 (my review here) and EOS R6 (my review here) cameras showed that Canon was serious about the full frame mirrorless space. The former remains one of the best jack-of-all-trades cameras ever made, possibly bested only by the extremely expensive Sony Alpha 1 (my review here). The EOS R6 was a very effective budget sports and general purpose camera, with great tracking abilities that equaled the far more expensive EOS R5. But what Canon didn’t have (and few other companies have either) is a high end pro sports mirrorless body with an integrated battery grip design. Canon has solved that with the release of the Canon EOS R3, a 1D style camera but with all of Canon’s latest mirrorless tricks…and a few new ones.

The large, bulky integrated grip design definitely polarizes the audience. For some photographers this is the only style of camera body that they like. They prefer the redundant controls for vertical shooting, the battery life that gets them thousands of images between charges, and the robust weather sealing that only such a large body can afford (Canon touts 1DX III levels of weather sealing on the EOS R3). Other photographers find such a camera body unnecessarily heavy and bulky and far more difficult to transport. It’s certainly true that your carrying solutions are vastly limited when your camera is this much larger than the moderately sized Canon EOS R5.

But the EOS R3 takes Canon’s sports technology to new levels, featuring a brand new 24MP backlit stacked CMOS sensor and an incredible 30FPS burst rate. Both the resolution and burst rate bests any 1D series camera, and the kind of images you can effortlessly get with the EOS R3 is enough to put a smile on anyone’s face:

This image was one of many in yet another 30FPS burst, and most impressive is that this shot was captured when the charging dog was almost too close for me to capture anymore. Just a few frames later she was completely out of frame. This may be the best autofocusing camera I’ve ever used, and that is compounded by a very innovative new feature – Eye Control AF, where the camera literally focuses on whatever your eye is looking at. While your experience using this technology may vary, my personal experience was that I loved it. It essentially took the place of my putting a finger on the screen and overriding the default focus position…except this was faster and more intuitive. I literally focused on this dried plant by looking at it…

The EOS R3 won’t be for everyone. It’s far more camera in terms of both size and performance than many people need, and it’s price point of nearly $6000 USD ($8000 CDN here in Canada) dictates that this is a camera that few photographers can afford as well. But for certain photographers, the EOS R3 will be the camera they have been desperately looking for. You can watch my video review or read my text review…or just enjoy the photos!

Thanks to Camera Canada for quickly getting an EOS R3 loaner for me. I’ve purchased both my Canon EOS R5 and Alpha 1 from them, and they’ve provided top notch customer service. If you are in Canada, be sure to check them out!

Photos of the Canon EOS R3

Photos Taken with the Canon EOS R3

Gear Used:

Purchase a Canon EOS R3 @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Purchase a Canon EOS R5 @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Purchase a Canon EOS R6 @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Buy DA Merchandise https://bit.ly/TWIMerch

Purchase the Sony Alpha 1 @ Camera Canada | B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Peak Design Leash Strap: Peak Design Store | B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK

Adobe Photoshop Creative Cloud 1-Year Subscription
Exposure Software X6 (Use Code “dustinabbott” to get 10% anything and everything)
Visit Dustin’s Amazon Storefront and see his favorite gear

Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. You can also make a donation here if you would like. Visit my Amazon page for some of my gear of choice! Thank you for your support.

Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52018DA in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!

Keywords: Canon EOS R3, EOS, R3, EOS R3, mirrorless, full frame, EOS R3 Review, Canon R3 Review, Canon EOS R3 Review, Dustin Abbott, Real World, Comparison, Handling, Dynamic Range, Tracking, Focus, Burst Rate, Tracking, Sports, Portraits, Resolution, High ISO, Image Quality, Sample Images, Photography, Dogs, Ergonomics, 24Mp, Sony a9, Sony Alpha 1, Canon EOS R5, RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS, RF 15-35mm F2.8L IS, Canon Letthelightin

DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Canon RF 70-200mm F4L IS USM Review

Dustin Abbott

March 8th, 2021

I was very impressed with the size Canon’s surprisingly compact RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM. when I reviewed the lens (my review here). It spoke to a new design philosophy at Canon which values compact size and reduced weight over internal zooming and the ability to use extenders. That latter point in particular was the most commonly cited negative in my audience’s response to that review. Little did I know, however, that the 70-200 F2.8 was soon to be the BIG brother of an even smaller F4 version. The Canon RF 70-200mm F4L IS USM is a full 26mm shorter and nearly 400g lighter than the F2.8 version, and as someone who has either owned or spent extensive time with all the EF F4 variants, I found the resulting package shockingly compact. It is only 14mm longer than my Canon EF 35mm F1.4L II prime, and is actually 65g lighter than the 35mm prime! The 70-200 F4L (as we’ll call it for brevity in this review) is a full 56mm shorter than the EF 70-200mm F4L IS USM II (my review here), which creates a completely different reality for storing and transporting the lens. I can mount the 70-200 F4L on my Canon EOS R5, and easily fit it in in my 8L Messenger Bag (I reviewed it here) that I prefer for carrying a light kit, so that will certainly make this an attractive option for those who want a telephoto travel option.

The RF 70-200 F4L is smaller aperture alternative to the bigger, more expensive ($2699 vs $1599 USD) F2.8 lens. My first L series lens personally was the original Canon EF 70-200mm F4L, a lens that is still the cheapest point of entry into the L (Luxury) series. That lens lacked stabilization and so was a little harder to use, but it was a revelation to an amateur photographer like myself at the time as it provided a degree of image quality that nothing I had owned to that point matched. I eventually replaced it with 70-200mm F4L IS before moving on to the F2.8 versions in my own kit. The F4 versions of these lenses are recognition that not every photographer needs the faster F2.8 aperture nor wants to deal with the additional bulk, weight, and expense that comes with it. That focal range is an extremely desirable one, going from this:

To this:

That’s obviously useful for a lot of different subjects, and the reality is that depth of field remains very shallow even at F4 over most of this zoom range, allowing you to continue to get very shallow depth of field if so desired.

Some of the earliest lenses to come in the RF mount were the RF 15-35mm F2.8L IS, the RF 24-70mm F2.8L IS, and the RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS, as these constitute the common tools of the trade that many photographers who actually earn a living by photography will use. But many, many photographers are perfectly happy to utilize Canon’s F4 alternatives to these larger, more expensive lenses, as they often provide equally good image quality in smaller packages and at smaller prices. We haven’t yet seen the F4 alternatives to the wide and standard zoom ranges, but this telephoto option is a most welcome addition to the ever-growing RF catalog. While the 70-200 F4L is more expensive than the last EF lens covering this aperture and focal length combination, it is a full $1100 cheaper than the RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS, and the incredibly compact size is going to make this a very attractive option for both amateurs but also professionals who want to travel light. There is one major sacrifice at the altar of compactness, however, and that is that this lens (like the RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS), is incompatible with extenders (teleconverters). It’s a bit of a sad irony, as the EOS R5 and R6 bodies can autofocus well even with very small maximum aperture configurations, but many of the telephoto options released to date for RF have been incompatible with extenders. That kind of defeats the purpose, does it not?

Beyond that, however, there really isn’t much to complain about. Join me as we break down the performance and reality of the RF 70-200 F4L IS in detail. If you would prefer to watch your reviews, you can choose either my long format definitive review or shorter standard review below.

Thanks to Camera Canada for getting me a loaner of the RF 70-200mm. If you’re in Canada, check them out for a reliable online retailer.

Canon RF 70-200 F4L Build and Features

As noted, the headline feature here is how incredibly compact this lens is. I knew it was small, but I was surprised at just how compact it was in person. This is constant aperture telephoto zoom, and yet it is only 83 (D) x 120 mm (L), or 3.3 x 4.7″ and weighs only 695g (1.5 lb). That makes it smaller than many of the primes I’ve tested. Here’s a look at the specification breakdown along with comparisons to both the last EF version and the F2.8 variants.

The only area it is larger than its EF counterpart is in diameter and the front filter thread, which is 77mm. It ships with a rather large lens hood, which has a familiar pro-grade feel to it. One nice change on RF is that the lens hoods on the white telephotos now match the lens body rather than being black. That never made much sense, and this new hood looks like it belongs rather than being a random hood you picked up and put on the lens.

The lens hood does have a locking mechanism, but, surprisingly, on my first hike with the lens, I noticed the hood was missing. Fortunately I was able to retrace my steps and found it like this in the snow:

I’m not quite sure how it came off…and fortunately it hasn’t been a recurring problem.

As noted in our introduction, the major redesign decision does bring the negative of losing compatibility with extenders. There is a rear glass element that is almost flush with the back of the lens at 70mm (it moves forward maybe 2 centimeters at 200mm), which means that there is no physical room for a teleconverter (either 1.4x or 2x) to be added. This is a serious loss, as many people have treated the EF versions of the lens as their main telephoto option if they occasionally need longer reach. Adding a 1.4x or 2x TC meant that they could also have a 280mm F5.6 lens or 400mm F8 lens, and Canon’s 70-200 variants have always handled TC’s fairly well. That flexibility is now lost, and one must just use the lens in its natural zoom range alone. I can see this being on the primary reasons why some might hang onto their EF lenses even with the other advantages this RF lens has.

The other thing that will bother some purists is that this lens is no longer internally zooming, as the RF 70-200 F4L will extend about 5.5cm when zoomed to 200mm.

This, of course, is what allows the smaller dimensions, and I also find that it helps with the weight distribution, as the majority of the lens’ weight is near the camera where it is more easily supported. The problem is that there is a fairly common perception that an externally zooming lens is not sealed nearly as well. The fear is that a lens that zooms externally is going to be more prone to issues with dust and moisture. I don’t think this is a valid concern, however, as Canon has clearly designed this lens for professional use. Here’s the language they use about the weather resistance, “Feel confident shooting in almost any weather condition, from rain to snow, thanks to dust- and weather-resistant construction in the lens mount, switch panel, lens barrel extension and all rings. Sealing is applied to lens joining sections, and switch panels to help prevent water and dust from entering into the lens. The RF70-200mm F4 L IS USM lens features fluorine coatings on the front and rearmost surfaces to help prevent water and oil from sticking to the lens, making it easy to clean off smudges and fingerprints.”

So, despite the extending barrel during focus, this is a lens designed for both professional use and for travel. I count at least seal points in the sealing diagram.

The lens does come with a pouch and hood, but there is no tripod collar. Frankly the lens is so compact that A) there is no room for one and B) it’s too small and light to need one.

There is a bank of four switches on the left side of the barrel. The first is a two position focus limiter where you can eliminate close focus distances if required. I never used the focus limiter, as I found autofocus fast enough in all situations that it was unneeded. Second down is an AF/MF switch (always useful), followed by two switches dedicated to the IS system. The first is a simple On/Off for the IS, which is followed then by a three position mode switch. Mode 1 is the standard, multipurpose option. Mode 2 is employed when panning, and the IS will shut down one axis of stabilization to allow you to better track lateral action. Mode 3 is sometimes referred to as a “dynamic mode”, as it focuses less on stabilizing the viewfinder and prioritizes stabilization at capture. This often provides the highest level of stabilization, but also makes looking through the viewfinder more turbulent.

I found the stabilization to be very effective on the 70-200 F4L, though I’ve never been successful at handholding ridiculously low shutter speeds. Canon touts a 5 stop stabilization with the lens IS alone, and a 7.5 stop IS combination with the EOS R5 and R6 cameras (because of their IBIS). The latter would imply that at 70mm I should be able to handhold a 2 second shot.

That ain’t happening, folks.

I find there’s a practical limit as you get down towards a one second exposure where just the slow movement of the shutter introduces enough vibration where I don’t get successfully stabilized shots, and that has been true across all platforms. But that doesn’t bother me, as I don’t see a lot of practical value for something like that. What I can say is that I had a fairly easy time capturing this stable image at 200mm with a shutter speed of 0.3 seconds, which is a full six stops of assistance.

But that was with a static subject indoors. In most environments there is going to be at least a little movement of your subject, so it is much better to keep that shutter speed up at more reasonable levels to help stop the motion of your subject. If I am shooting events, I treat somewhere around 1/125th of a second the bare minimum and prefer 1/200th of a second with a telephoto lens like this. Using Mode 3 will give you the best stability results in the actual capture (that’s what I used for the shot above) even though the viewfinder will feel very unstable.

Stabilization can also be useful when shooting in AV mode or something similar and your shutter speed drops a little lower than you anticipated. I shot this wintry scene very early one morning in the predawn gloom. My shutter speed dropped to 1/10th, but I used it as an opportunity to see how stabilization did in the real world. I took a couple of photos to be sure I got a clean one, and, as you can see, this photo is very crisp even at 45MP on my EOS R5 and at 1/10th of a second.

Where I also saw a lot of value in the stabilization was when shooting video. I could handhold video effectively even at 200mm, and if I turned the IS off, the video immediately starting jumping and bouncing. There’s no question this is an effective stabilizer, but, as always, you do need to have reasonable expectations of what a stabilizer can and cannot do and utilize good technique when trying to operate at its limits.

There are three rings on the lens, with the largest being the zoom ring, and it is wide and nicely damped. Like many recent Canon lenses, there is a bevel in the ring towards the front third of it, and this creates a very natural place for your fingers to rest. The zoom action is very smooth. There is a zoom lock on the right side of the barrel that will lock the lens in its retracted 70mm position to keep the lens from “creeping” while carrying it. I needed this a bit less than on the F2.8 version, mostly because the zoom ring is closer to the lens mount and less likely to be bumped or encounter friction when you are walking or moving with the lens/camera on a strap. I went out hiking with it several times and found that there were a few times that it had extended a bit while moving, but that it mostly stayed retracted.

The middle ring is a very slender manual focus ring, which moves smoothly but with fairly low resistance and not a lot of feel. Like other mirrorless lenses, this is a focus by wire arrangement where input on the ring is routed through the focus motor, so the lens must be attached to the camera and the camera must be powered on and the correct focus mode engaged for the ring to do anything. Fortunately many of the EOS R bodies have Canon’s “Focus Guide” which is a clever, innovative approach to manual focus that I really enjoy. I suspect that the focus ring will be rarely used by most people, however, as the focus system on both the lens and most of the cameras it is made for are very sophisticated.

The RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS moved the unique RF mount control ring from the front of the lens to the point nearest the lens mount, which I lamented because it was different than most other RF lenses and would mess with your “muscle memory” in reaching for it. Canon has put the control ring on the 70-200 F4L back in the traditional spot near the front of the lens. It has the unique diamond pattern texture on the control ring that makes it easy to distinguish by feel from the other rings.

The control ring can be assigned a variety of different purposes in the camera body. Some will set it for aperture control, others might like exposure compensation, etc… Canon will “declick” the control ring for a fee if you request it.

The aperture iris has nine rounded blades, which helps keep a nice circular shape to bokeh highlights when the lens is stopped down. Here’s a look at F4, F5.6, and F8:

The RF 70-200 F4L can now focus down considerably closer than the previous EF L II lens, which was limited to an MFD of 1 meter. The new lens can focus as close as 60cm (2 feet), which does give one a little more flexibility in tight spaces. Also improved is the magnification figure, which is now a very useful 0.28x at 200mm, which is higher than any of the other Canon lenses covering this zoom range. Here’s what maximum magnification looks like:

It’s worth noting that there is clearly a bit of “focus breathing” taking place at MFD, as while the lens can focus considerably closer (60% of the MFD of the last 70-200mm F4L IS lens), it only has a small bump in magnification (0.28x vs 0.27x). I didn’t feel like the lens breathed much at normal distances, however.

The RF 70-200 F4L performs better up close than did the RF 70-200mm F2.8L, as close up performance is excellent. At F4 there is some obvious vignette (more on that in the IQ section below), but the plane of focus is nice and flat, contrast is strong, and fine details are rendered quite well. Things look better still at F5.6. Depth of field is tiny at this focus distance, so stop down a bit if you want more than a hair or two in focus.

All in all, we’ve got a beautifully made lens with great handling that is also incredibly compact and portable. It will fit in spaces for transport that none of Canon’s earlier 70-200mm lenses would fit in. That, to me, is the most compelling argument for the RF 70-200 F4L, with the lack of compatibility with teleconverters the most compelling argument against it.

Autofocus Performance

Canon has employed dual Nano USM motors to drive autofocus in this lens, and after spending extended time with it, I think this was an excellent choice. Canon has typically employed ring-type USM motors in their L series lenses because these focus motors have a lot of torque and deliver good focus speed. Canon started experimenting with STM (stepping motors) in 2012 about the time they started to employ their Dual Pixel AF technology in Live View, which, in many ways was the precursor to mirrorless. The point of STM was to allow for smoother, quieter focus transitions particularly for video. Early STM wasn’t particularly impressive in other ways, as, while smoother, there wasn’t a lot of torque there and focus tended to be slower. STM has steadily improved, however, and when Canon introduced Nano USM, it was an impressive blend of the two types of focus, giving both the quiet, smooth performance of STM along with the speed of USM. Nano USM was mostly employed with lenses with smaller, lighter elements (like variable aperture zooms) because larger, heavier elements needed more torque. Canon has followed the path of other companies like Sony and Fuji by employing multiple Nano USM motors to get that torque and speed while keeping focus smooth and quiet. Sony and Fuji often call these type motors “Linear Motors”, and I’ve seen configuration with triple and even quad linear motors to give both speed and smoothness. Canon has really hit the sweet spot here (as they did with the F2.8 version), as the dual Nano USM motors really get the job done here.

First of all, the speed is impressive. Even major focus changes happen near instantly, with zero drama in the process. Focus just jumps from one point to another. The nature of the weather and timing during my review period did not allow me to shoot any action (we have been facing both deep snow and COVID restrictions during my review period, so there are no indoor sports), but I have no question that autofocus speed and accuracy is easily up to tracking action just like it was on the RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS.

Both human and animal eye detect work well, and help you get well focused results.

I had excellent real world results while out on my hikes, with focusing quickly grabbing (typically) what I wanted and locking on with precision. Even this very slender subject against a very bright, monochrome background produced highly accurate focus.

In this shot of pine needles, you can see that focus locked accurately and delivered beautiful results.

Focus is also extremely quiet, with no apparent sound in ordinary work. Even when recording video focus pulls in a completely silent environment and using the on-board microphone, I basically could could not hear any kind of focus noise at all. Focus pulls were smooth and confident, which is a big part of why this technology was developed. I did note a bit of a stepping action with smaller focus pulls, with larger pulls (surprisingly) being the smoother one. This is an excellent lens for video work because focus doesn’t get in the way. During my video tests the RF 70-200 F4L showed absolute confidence tracking my face without any drama.

Eye tracking was very good for an event setting, and meant that it is simple to get great results when shooting in a church, concert, or wedding venue.

Eye Detect worked very well with both human and animal subjects. You can see from this shot that although all the lighting was at the back of our new kitten, Loki, and his eyes were in shadow, eye detect grabbed the eye and accurately focused on it.

The focus system in the RF 70-200 F4L is one of its major strengths and further extends the accessibility of this lens to photographers of all skill levels.

Canon RF 70-200 F4L Image Quality

I had a little bit of a difficult time with the RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS in this section, as there were parts about the lens that I loved and others that I was disappointed by. I found the rendering to be perhaps the nicest I’ve ever seen from a 70-200mm lens (to date), but I was less than wowed with the acuity of the lens in the corners, which were a little weak, and I wasn’t always blown away with real world sharpness. There is some possibility that I got a less than exceptional copy of the lens, however, and I’m interested in taking a look at a second copy in the future. I’m less ambiguous here, however, as I find the real world performance of the RF 70-200 F4L to be quite excellent.

I am generally more critical of very expensive lenses optically than I am of inexpensive ones. I believe that consumers should be able to expect that if they pay a premium price, they should receive a premium performance. The RF 70-200 F4L is more expensive than the Sony 70-200mm F4 G OSS, but in this case it is only a $100 premium. There isn’t a Z-mount alternative from Nikon yet, but looking at the pricing trends suggests that such a lens wouldn’t be any cheaper than the Canon. But what really helps the F4 lens, to me, is that it is a full $1100 USD cheaper than the F2.8 version, and, while more expensive than the Canon EF 70-200mm F4L IS II (by about $300), it is considerably more compact than that lens and delivers a slightly better optical performance. You can debate as to whether or not that justifies the price premium, but suffice it to say I’m a bit less conflicted over the price to-performance ratio of the 70-200 F4L IS. I think it delivers strong performance across the zoom range with just a minor dip in the corners at 135mm.

Now, to the specifics.

There is a mild amount of barrel distortion (+3) at 70mm along with a moderate amount of vignette (+41). Both of these correct easily either in camera for JPEGs and/or Video or via the correction profile in your software for RAW files.

By 200mm the distortion flips to some mild pincushion distortion (-3) and a much heavier amount of vignette (+81). Everything is linear and corrects fine, though that’s enough vignette on the long end that it will show up in certain real world images if left uncorrected.

In many situations a bit of natural vignette is actually desirable, though I personally would rather add vignette to taste rather than have to correct for it.

I saw very little real world chromatic aberrations. There is a bit of lateral CA along the edge of the frame, but nothing severe. Longitudinal CA is even better controlled. You can see from this shot with bright sunlight and different depths of field that there are essentially no visible CAs.

So, the basic optical flaws are all fairly well controlled and shouldn’t be an issue. So how about contrast and resolution?

Here’s a look at my test chart. All of these tests are done on a 45 MP Canon EOS R5.

Here’s a look at 70mm crops from the center, mid-frame, and lower right corner. You can see that the performance across the frame is excellent…right into the corners.

Stopping down to F5.6 delivers exceptional results even in the far corners. A lens like this can be surprisingly useful for landscapes due to being able to compress the image and pull distant layers closer.

The lens reaches a truly small minimum aperture of F32 at all points of the zoom range, but I think this should be avoided because of the effects of diffraction will start to really reduce contrast and sharpness to what I consider unacceptable levels.

The lens followed a fairly similar pattern at 100mm, delivering very strong results across the frame wide open, but with a noticeable improvement in contrast when stopped down to F5.6. This is particularly true in the mid-frame and in the corners, which are shown below:

You can see that real world is excellent, as this wide open 100mm shot of a very tired me shows (morning after a day of 16 hours of travel!)

Unlike the sample of the RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS that I tested, which was strongest at 135mm, the RF 70-200 F4L IS is actually weakest at 135mm. The center and midframe only lag a bit, with slightly less contrast, but the corners were definitely softer and don’t really reach excellent levels until F11.

For context, however, the most important parts of the frame are still very sharp at F4. You can see that this portrait shot is composed with the face slightly beyond the rule of thirds zone, and yet the crop will show that sharpness is still excellent.

So finally we reach the arguably most important point in the zoom range – 200mm. For many people this will be the most-used spot on the zoom range, and having strong 200mm performance is imperative to having good up close performance. I’ve seen 70-200mm lenses that “faded” down the stretch and lost some performance at 200mm, but that’s not the case here. The RF 70-200 F4L maintains a similar level of performance at 200mm, with good center performance, excellent mid-frame performance, and strong corners.

Like the 70 and 100mm points, excellent corner performance is available by F5.6:

A look at a crop at 200mm shows that real world sharpness and contrast, while not off the charts, is very good.

At least in the copies that I reviewed, the F4 lens produced more consistent results than the F2.8, but I do think that I reviewed a weaker copy of the F2.8 lens, as some other sources show the two lenses performing very similarly.

The RF 70-200 F4L is similar to the F2.8 lens in the quality of the bokeh. The RF 20-200mm F2.8L IS will have the advantage in the amount of blur, particularly as you move further away from your subject, but the F4 lens does have a very nice balance of softness and blending of out of focus colors that just make for really pleasing images.

Up close, the bokeh is gorgeous, allowing backgrounds to melt away in a creamy fashion. In the first two examples, we can see first F5 and then F7.1, and, while more is in focus in the second shot, both show a nice quality of blur.

In this second series, you can see that I’ve varied the ratios (distance from camera to subject to background) a bit to show the bokeh in different situations. I think it all looks quite good.

The lens showed little susceptibility to flare artifacts in my tests. Any ghosting or veiling is very minimal, so between the ASC (Air Sphere Coatings) and the deep lens hood, this is a lens well equipped to handle bright sources of light in the frame.

All in all, I see very little to complain about optically. They have managed to both miniaturize the lens and maintain a high level of optical performance, which makes this lens a winner. Pair that with the excellent high ISO capabilities of the EOS R cameras, and you’ve got a lens that can be used even indoors for events or weddings. This shot from a religious service was taken at ISO 3200, which allowed for a 1/320th of a second shutter speed at F4. The 200mm crop shows great detail.

If you want to see more images, you can check out the image gallery here.

If F4 is a wide enough aperture to meet your needs, I think you will be very satisfied with the optical performance of the Canon RF 70-200mm F4L IS USM.

Conclusion

The Canon RF 70-200mm F4L IS USM is a winner. It is incredibly compact, which opens up a whole new way to use the lens and a whole new market of those who wouldn’t mind the premium optics, build, and autofocus of an L series telephoto, but who were unwilling to deal with the bulk and weight of such a lens. But Canon also has not compromised on the autofocus or image quality performance of this lens, which leaves potential buyers free to purchase this lens without having to accept any major compromises.

The only area to criticize in this new design is that you have to give up the use of teleconverters, which is unfortunate when one considers that the amazing focus systems of the EOS R bodies (particularly the R5 and R6 at the moment) theoretically should make using TCs more seamless than ever before. This is a lens that must be used solely as the bare lens, though one could enable the 1.6x crop on a camera like the EOS R5 if you wanted more crop in camera. I did utilize this at an event as I wanted the framing in camera to be able to deliver results to the client without having to do post work. Just know that this is only a cropping of the full image, however, and not actually more reach like one would get using a TC.

Autofocus performance is excellent. I really like Canon’s Nano USM tech, as it delivers fast, quiet, smooth, and accurate autofocus results. The image stabilizer is also effective even with a higher megapixel body like my EOS R5. I appreciate the solid image quality as well. But what really sets the RF 70-200 F4L apart is the incredibly compact, lightweight nature of the lens that will allow you to treat it like a 24-105mm F4 lens for transport and storage. This lens would almost certainly end up in my Canon travel kit if/when I purchase this lens. At $1599 USD, it isn’t cheap, but neither does it seem unreasonably priced. If you can afford the cost of entry, the Canon RF 70-200mm F4L IS USM will certainly become a lens that you reach for often…and that versatility makes it well worth the cost of entry.

Pros:

Significant size and weight savings over competing lenses
Extremely fast, quiet, and accurate autofocus
Very good tracking and action capabilities when paired with better cameras
Highly effective image stabilization system
Improved maximum magnification
Very easy to use and transport
Gorgeous bokeh and color
Good global contrast and rendering
Excellent optical performance across the frame
Good control of aberrations and flare

Cons:

Not compatible with teleconverters
More expensive than previous 70-200mm F4L lenses

Gear Used:

Purchase a Canon RF 70-200mm F4L IS @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Purchase a Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Purchase a Canon EOS R5 @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Purchase a Canon EOS R6 @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Buy DA Merchandise https://bit.ly/TWIMerch

Peak Design Slide Lite: Peak Design Store | B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK
Peak Design Leash Strap: Peak Design Store | B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK
BenQ SW271 4K Photo Editing Monitor – B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon.ca | Amazon UK
Adobe Photoshop Creative Cloud 1-Year Subscription
Exposure Software X6 (Use Code “dustinabbott” to get 10% anything and everything)
Visit Dustin’s Amazon Storefront and see his favorite gear

Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. You can also make a donation here if you would like. Visit my Amazon page for some of my gear of choice! Thank you for your support.

Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52018DA in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!

Use Code “DUSTINHDR” to get $10 off ($15 CDN) any Skylum product: Luminar, Aurora, or AirMagic

Keywords: Canon RF 70-200 F4L IS, Canon RF 70-200mm F4L IS USM Review, Canon RF 70-200mm, 70-200, 70-200mm, RF, 70-200L, L, IS, USM, F4, F4L, F2.8L, F2.8, Canon EOS R5, EOS, R5, EOS R5, EOS R6, mirrorless, full frame, EOS R5 Review, Canon R5 Review, Canon 70-200 Review, Dustin Abbott, Real World, Comparison, Handling, Tracking, Focus, Burst Rate, Tracking, Sports, Portraits, Resolution, High ISO, Image Quality, Sample Images, Photography, Dogs, Ergonomics, 45Mpx, Sony a9, RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS, Canon

DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Canon RF 70-200mm F4L IS USM Image Gallery

Dustin Abbott

March 8th, 2021

I was very impressed with the size Canon’s surprisingly compact RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM. when I reviewed the lens (my review here). It spoke to a new design philosophy at Canon which values compact size and reduced weight over internal zooming and the ability to use extenders. That latter point in particular was the most commonly cited negative in my audience’s response to that review. Little did I know, however, that the 70-200 F2.8 was soon to be the BIG brother of an even smaller F4 version. The Canon RF 70-200mm F4L IS USM is a full 26mm shorter and nearly 400g lighter than the F2.8 version, and as someone who has either owned or spent extensive time with all the EF F4 variants, I found the resulting package shockingly compact. It is only 14mm longer than my Canon EF 35mm F1.4L II prime, and is actually 65g lighter than the 35mm prime! The 70-200 F4L (as we’ll call it for brevity in this review) is a full 56mm shorter than the EF 70-200mm F4L IS USM II (my review here), which creates a completely different reality for storing and transporting the lens. I can mount the 70-200 F4L on my Canon EOS R5, and easily fit it in in my 8L Messenger Bag (I reviewed it here) that I prefer for carrying a light kit, so that will certainly make this an attractive option for those who want a telephoto travel option.

The RF 70-200 F4L is smaller aperture alternative to the bigger, more expensive ($2699 vs $1599 USD) F2.8 lens. My first L series lens personally was the first Canon EF 70-200mm F4L, a lens that remains the cheapest point of entry into the L (Luxury) series. That lens lacked stabilization and so was a little harder to use, but it was a revelation to an amateur photographer like myself at the time as it provided a degree of image quality that nothing I had owned to that point matched. I eventually replaced it with 70-200mm F4L IS before moving on to the F2.8 versions in my own kit. The F4 versions of these lenses are recognition that not every photographer needs the faster F2.8 aperture nor wants to deal with the additional bulk, weight, and expense that comes with it. That focal range is an extremely desirable one, going from this:

To this:

That’s obviously useful for a lot of different subjects, and the reality is that depth of field remains very shallow even at F4 over most of this zoom range, allowing you to continue to get very shallow depth of field if so desired.

Some of the earliest lenses to come in the RF mount were the RF 15-35mm F2.8L IS, the RF 24-70mm F2.8L IS, and the RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS, as these constitute the common tools of the trade that many photographers who actually earn a living by photography will use. But many, many photographers are perfectly happy to utilize Canon’s F4 alternatives to these larger, more expensive lenses, as they often provide equally good image quality in smaller packages and at smaller prices. We haven’t yet seen the F4 alternatives to the wide and standard zoom ranges, but this telephoto option is a most welcome addition to the ever-growing RF catalog. While the 70-200 F4L is more expensive than the last EF lens covering this aperture and focal length combination, it is a full $1100 cheaper than the RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS, and the incredibly compact size is going to make this a very attractive option for both amateurs but also professionals who want to travel light. There is one major sacrifice at the altar of compactness, however, and that is that this lens (like the RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS), is incompatible with extenders (teleconverters). It’s a bit of a sad irony, as the EOS R5 and R6 bodies can autofocus well even with very small maximum aperture configurations, but many of the telephoto options released to date for RF have been incompatible with extenders. That kind of defeats the purpose, does it not?

Beyond that, though, there’s little to complain about. You can either check out my reviews here, or just enjoy looking at the photos in the galleries below.

Thanks to Camera Canada for getting me a loaner of the RF 70-200mm. If you’re in Canada, check them out for a reliable online retailer.

Images of the Canon RF 70-200mm F4L IS

Images Taken with the Canon RF 70-200mm F4L IS

Gear Used:

Purchase a Canon RF 70-200mm F4L IS @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Purchase a Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Purchase a Canon EOS R5 @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Purchase a Canon EOS R6 @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Buy DA Merchandise https://bit.ly/TWIMerch

Peak Design Slide Lite: Peak Design Store | B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK
Peak Design Leash Strap: Peak Design Store | B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK
BenQ SW271 4K Photo Editing Monitor – B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon.ca | Amazon UK
Adobe Photoshop Creative Cloud 1-Year Subscription
Exposure Software X6 (Use Code “dustinabbott” to get 10% anything and everything)
Visit Dustin’s Amazon Storefront and see his favorite gear

Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. You can also make a donation here if you would like. Visit my Amazon page for some of my gear of choice! Thank you for your support.

Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52018DA in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!

Use Code “DUSTINHDR” to get $10 off ($15 CDN) any Skylum product: Luminar, Aurora, or AirMagic

Keywords: Canon RF 70-200 F4L IS, Canon RF 70-200mm F4L IS USM Review, Canon RF 70-200mm, 70-200, 70-200mm, RF, 70-200L, L, IS, USM, F4, F4L, F2.8L, F2.8, Canon EOS R5, EOS, R5, EOS R5, EOS R6, mirrorless, full frame, EOS R5 Review, Canon R5 Review, Canon 70-200 Review, Dustin Abbott, Real World, Comparison, Handling, Tracking, Focus, Burst Rate, Tracking, Sports, Portraits, Resolution, High ISO, Image Quality, Sample Images, Photography, Dogs, Ergonomics, 45Mpx, Sony a9, RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS, Canon

DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Canon EOS R6 Review

Dustin Abbott

December 9th, 2020

While it was the Canon EOS R5 (my review here) that grabbed my attention personally (it is very close to being a perfect camera for my uses), it was the Canon EOS R6 that was even more interesting to others due to the R5 being overkill for many photographers in both resolution and price. Canon’s initial branding strategy with the EOS R and then the RP were a bit muddled, as while the EOS R inherited the sensor of the 5D Mark IV and the RP the sensor of the 6D Mark II, neither of those camera were really mirrorless equivalents of those cameras. Canon seems to be reconciling their branding to their traditional 5 series and 6 series lineups with the R5 and R6, though both cameras have moved upscale in terms of performance and price alike.

The market position of the original EOS R relative to the R6 is a little murky, as while the R6 has a number of clear advantages (IBIS, much faster burst rate and tracking capabilities, dual card slots, much better video specs), the EOS R has a few upscale features withheld from the R6 (top plate LCD screen, higher resolution). It’s obvious that the EOS R6 is the more complete camera, however, and it is priced accordingly. It retails for $2499 USD, about $200 higher than what the EOS R did at launch. The new EOS R5 is considerably more expensive, however, with a MSRP of $3899 USD, making it one of the most expensive cameras in its class. Ironically, however, it feels like it is the EOS R6 may have a slightly more difficult time justifying its price, as in many ways the EOS R5 combines the resolution of Sony a7R series and the performance of the a9 series. It is more expensive than what the 5D Mark IV was at launch ($3499), but is also has a number of class leading innovations along with higher performance. The $400 premium over the 5DIV feels somewhat justified to many 5 series photographers (who are more likely to be either working professionals or more affluent amateurs…and many of us thought it would be priced even higher!), but the EOS R6 happens to land in a lull where market forces have driven down the price of direct competitors like the Sony a7III or the Nikon Z6 to the $2000 USD (or less) range (those cameras can currently be had for considerably less than $2000). The original EOS R can be had for around $1800 at this point. Photographers in this price range are far more likely to be concerned with price and less likely to be deeply invested in one particular camera brand in terms of lenses and/or accessories. It is fairly easy to position the EOS R5 as the best in its class; can the same be said for the EOS R6?

The 20Mpx of resolution may give some potential buyers pause, however, as they wonder if even the difference between the 20Mpx of the EOS R6 and the 24Mpx of competitors like the Sony a7III or Nikon Z6 is going to be noticeable. We’ve already determined that the EOS R6 can’t really compete on price, so it will have to compete on merit. In many ways the EOS R6 is (like the R5) a joy to use. It has great ergonomics, a good sensor, and a great autofocus system. In fact, the tracking abilities of the camera may be the single greatest reason to consider one. But is the EOS R6 the camera for you? Is it worth $500 more than its main competitors? Read on to discover that answer, or you can watch my long-format definitive video review or shorter standard review below:

Canon EOS R6 Features and Specification

Here’s a quick look at the main bullet point specifications of the EOS R6.

Sensor: 20MP full-frame CMOS 36 x 24mm
Image processor: Digic X
AF points: 5,940 Dual Pixel CMOS AF II | 100% coverage
Sensitivity: Down to EV -6.5 with F1.2 lens, Video down to -5 EV
ISO range: 100-102,400 (expandable to 50-102,400)
Stabilization: 5-axis, up to 8 stops
Max image size: 5472 x 3648px
Metering zones: 384
Video: 4K up to 60fps, 1080p up to 120fps 10-bit 4:2:2 with Canon Log or HDR PQ, Internal Recording in all Formats, with Auto Focus
Viewfinder: 0.5-inch OLED EVF, 3.69M dots, 100% coverage, 0.76x magnification, 120fps refresh rate
Memory card: 2x UHS-II SD/SDHC/SDXC
LCD: 3.0-inch fully articulating touchscreen, 1.62M dots.
Max burst: 12fps mechanical shutter, 20fps electronic shutter
Connectivity: Wi-Fi 2.4GHz, Bluetooth 4.2, USB-C (USB 3.1 Gen 2), micro HDMI (type D), microphone, headphone, remote

There will always be areas where each manufacturer makes choices to distinguish their camera lines, and so I’ve worked to go through and categorize the areas where Canon has chosen (or their sensor resolution demanded) a distinguishing of specifications or performance along with the areas of similarity. Here’s that summation:

Differences between the R5 and R6:

Sensor: 45Mpx (New) vs 20 Mpx (Similar to 1Dx III)
R6 has deeper buffer (240 RAW vs 180 RAW)
EVF (R5 has 5.76M dot vs R6 3.68M dot)
LCD (R5 has 3.2” 2.1M dot vs R6 3” 1.68M dot)
Video (R5 can do 8K/30p and 4K/120p vs R6 4K/60p with slight 1.07x crop)
Video 2 (R5 has full range of video exposure modes; R6 has only P and M)
Video 3 (R5 gets DCI aspect and All-I encoding options)
Physical:
1. Top plate LCD on R5; traditional mode dial on R6
2. Full size remote release on front of R5 vs 2.5mm on R6
3. Flash sync port on R5; none on R6
4. More metal in R5 and 5 series weather sealing (6D level in R6)
5. CFexpress and SD UHS-II (R5) vs 2 x UHS-II (R6)
R6 has a mild advantage in low light – -6.5 EV vs -6 EV (-5 EV video vs -4)
Slightly better battery rating for R6 (380EVF/510LCD vs 320/490)
R5 has 2.4 + 5GHz wi-fi radios; R6 has only 2.4 | Only R5 can use wireless grip
R5 has Bluetooth 5.0 vs R6 Bluetooth 4.2
Dual-Pixel RAW only for R5
$3899 USD vs $2499
R6 is lighter at 598g vs 650g
Overheating issues less pronounced with R6
Slightly expanded native ISO range in R6 (100-102,400 vs 100-52,600)

Similarities between the R5 and R6:

Same IBIS System
Same burst rate (12 FPS M| 20 FPS E)
Both EVF’s can run at 120Hz
Both have 100% coverage and newest DPAF
1/250^th flash sync speed
CLOG + HDR PQ 10 Bit
Larger capacity LP-E6NH battery (14% more energy)

I feel like most of these areas of distinction feel natural and justified, with only something like R6’s limited video exposure modes feeling cheap and arbitrary. The tracking capabilities and particularly the burst rates are easily better than competing cameras, however, so there are few areas where the EOS R6 feels non-competitive with other cameras in its class. Like the R5, the EOS R6 feels great in the hand (my hands, at least), feeling more like a DSLR than a square mirrorless body without enough grip to hold onto. This is going to be an area of disagreement for some of you, obviously, as there are those who prefer their mirrorless cameras to be as compact as possible. Small and compact was not the chief priority here, though surprisingly the end weight of the EOS R6 isn’t much different than, say, the Sony a7III. Here’s a comparison of physical differences of competing cameras:

At 680g (1.5lb) with memory cards and battery, the Canon EOS R6 is slightly heavier than most competing cameras, but I would personally take that trade-off for the more functional grip that doesn’t immediately scream for a grip-extender and/or L-bracket for those of us with bigger hands. The EOS R6 feels great in my hands; it has that easy, natural ergonomic design that Canon has often excelled at and Sony hasn’t yet quite achieved. The physical specifications of the R6 are essentially identical to the R5 at 138 (W) x 97.5 (H) x 88.4mm (D). There is little to distinguish the two models from most angles, though the top line of the cameras is the exception to that rule.

The EOs R6 sports a more traditional mode dial which sits in the position that the LCD screen on the top of the EOS R5 sits. There are both pros and cons to this. The pro is that the mode dial remains the quickest, most logical way to change modes on the camera. The EOS R5’s system requires multiple steps – pressing the Mode button activates the selection process either on the top or rear LCD screens, and I personally find the simplest way to choose a mode is by touch on the rear LCD screen. Switching to video modes requires a third step in the process. On the EOS R6 you can just twist the dial to your desired mode and you’re done. The downside is that the top mounted screen does give you additional information at a glance, which can be useful. At the end of the day, however, I suspect that most users will do just fine without the top mounted screen.

The EOS R6 also lacks the little button to light up the top LCD screen for obvious reasons (namely that it doesn’t exist!) There’s one other minor difference that many won’t spot but has come into play for me. If you’ll look at the photo above, you’ll note the there is a slight cutout on the top line section moving towards the front dial and shutter button on the EOS R6 to accommodate the video record button. This is necessary because the button sits a little lower on the R6 and needs that cutout to give more access to it…but it isn’t quite enough. The record button on the EOS R5 sits high enough that I can access it more easily (even with gloves on; it’s winter here!), but the button on the EOS R6 requires me to shape my finger to press down more with the tip to access the button…and I found it essentially impossible when wearing gloves…even thin ones. That’s going to be a bit of a liability for those who operate in cold weather. I would recommend going into the menu and allowing a full depress of the shutter to begin video recording when in video mode; that function is disabled by default. At least there is a workaround!

There is another minor difference found on the front of the camera in that the EOS R5 has a three-pin shutter release port. That port isn’t on the R6, but there is the smaller (and frankly, more standard) 2.5mm jack on the left side of the camera. That space on the EOS R5 is occupied by the flash sync port; a feature that the EOS R6 lacks.

Most people use wireless triggers for flashes at this point, but there will probably at least a few shooters that will miss out on not having that option. You’ll also find a micro-HDMI port, USB C (USB 3.1 Gen 2), along with a headphone monitoring jack and microphone input. The EOS R6 can be charged via the USB-C connection, but, like the EOS R, it requires a charging source with “Power-Send” technology, which unfortunately severely limits what you can use to charge the camera. This is an area where I prefer Sony, as they can be charged from just about any source.

The original EOS R already had what was arguably one of the best ergonomic designs of any mirrorless camera, though the inclusion of a new “innovation” Canon called the “touch bar” proved to be highly polarizing. I was personally never a fan.

Canon avoided that pitfall here, and the two biggest ergonomic improvements on the EOS R6 are the replacement of the touch bar with the standard 5 series joystick (a welcome addition!!) along with replacing the D-Pad of the EOS R with a standard 5-series wheel. The latter makes a big difference, as it gives you three functional control dials PLUS the control ring on the lens. That’s four potential control dials, which gives you a lot of physical control…and you can customize the functions to suit your personal workflow. I really, really enjoy the physical control scheme here. Everything is well situated, moves wells, and just generally works.

Canon continues to employ the very valuable protection screen over the sensor while changing lenses (I rarely have to use a bulb cleaner on my EOS R sensor, but have to blow my Sony sensors off every few days). Canon has added a button in the position often occupied by a “depth of field preview” button on 5-series cameras, though in this case you can program that button to a wide variety of functions (I have it set up as a quick access to APS-C mode).

There were a lot of complaints about the single SD card slot on the EOS R, but Canon has avoided that pitfall here. There are two UHS-II compatible SD/SDHC/SDXC slots beneath a nicely engineered door on the right side of the camera. The EOS R5 replaces one of those with a CFExpress slot, but the lower resolution of the EOS R6 makes that unnecessary. I’m personally using Sony Tough cards for both the CFExpress and SD cards. These have been my cards of choice for the past few years, and I’ve had nothing but flawless performance from them. Staying with the SD card standard will save you money; you are more likely to have the cards already, and, if not, they are relatively inexpensive. I noted in my EOS R5 review that the logistical issue with a new memory format is that unless manufacturers really coalesce around one particular format, it will be some time (if ever) before we see CFExpress card slots on laptops or in monitors and other such devices that make our workflow simpler. SD has been incredibly convenient for a long time for this very reason.

One of Canon’s key advantages over competitors is in its truly excellent articulating LCD touchscreens. More and more new cameras are moving to this standard, but Canon still does them the best. Canon’s touchscreens are particularly well executed, with high responsiveness and often higher resolution than competitors. The LCD screen on the EOS R6 is slightly smaller than the one on the R5 (3″ vs 3.2″) and a bit lower resolution (1.62M dot vs 2.1M dot). It is still nice, however, and remains very responsive to touch compared to screens from Fuji, Nikon, or Sony. The menu design has touch in mind, and I find it very easy to navigate the menus by using using touch alone or some combination of touch and the joystick. The ability to rotate the screen to face the front is a genuine advantage over my Sony cameras, as I can actually see if my videos will be ruined by poor framing.

The EVF is also an area where Canon has distinguished between the R5 and R6, as, while the viewfinders are equal size (0.5″) and have the same magnification (0.76x), the resolution is lower at 3.69M dot compared to the 5.76 million dot on the EOS R5. You would note the difference in resolution if you looked through them side by side, but I still find the viewfinder to be very good, and it still higher resolution than what you’ll find on competing models from Sony. You have an option to choose a high refresh rate (120FPS) for smooth, fluid tracking of action. This comes at the cost of some battery life, but it’s easy to just engage the additional refresh rate for the moments when you need it.

Canon was slow to the party in adopting In-Body-Image-Stabilization (sensor stabilization). They kept making the argument that lens-stabilization was superior as it could be tailored for the unique needs of that particular lens. There are probably merits to that argument, but the point was often moot, as about half of Canon’s early RF-mount lenses didn’t have IS (Image Stabilization). My long experience with Sony’s IBIS is that some stabilization trumps no stabilization every time. Canon has found a way to effectively marry their sensor stabilization (IBIS) with the lens stabilization (IS) on their lenses and deliver truly incredible amounts of stabilization. The following is taken from an article on “The Phoblographer” as it details Canon’s ratings on their existing RF lenses when used with the EOS R5 or R6:

8 Stops

The following lenses will give users of the Canon EOS R5 and the Canon EOS R6 up to 8 stops of image stabilization.

Canon RF 24-70mm f2.8 L IS USM
Canon RF 24-105mm f4 L IS USM
Canon RF 85mm f1.2 L USM (both variants)
Canon RF 28-70mm f2 L USM
Canon RF 24-105mm f4-7.1 IS STM

7 Stops

The following lenses will give users of the Canon EOS R5 and the Canon EOS R6 up to 7 stops of image stabilization.

Canon RF 15-35mm f2.8 L IS USM
Canon RF 35mm f1.8 IS USM
Canon RF 50mm f1.2 L USM

7.5 Stops

The following lenses will give users of the Canon EOS R5 and the Canon EOS R6 up to 7.5 stops of image stabilization.

Canon RF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM

6.5 Stops

The following lenses will give users of the Canon EOS R5 and the Canon EOS R6 up to 6.5 stops of image stabilization.

Canon RF 24-240mm f4-6.3 IS USM Lens

6 Stops

The following lenses will give users of the Canon EOS R5 and the Canon EOS R6 up to 6 stops of image stabilization.

Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1L IS USM Lens

Anything beyond 6.5 stops is essentially unheard of, and to hear that a few unstabilized lenses can achieve 8 stops based just on the sensor stabilization is truly incredible. I quickly picked up on the fact that the Canon IBIS was more effective than Sony’s equivalent system, particularly when using lenses outside the comfort zone. The EOS R6 will give you slightly better real world results than the EOS R5 for the simple reason that the lower sensor resolution makes motion blur less obvious (blur occupies fewer total pixels). High resolution bodies really punish motion blur, so the IBIS system gets a bit of a break here.

There’s still a practical limit, however. I get few well stabilized results at shutter speeds approaching one second or longer, even though theoretically that is possible. This shot is reasonably good at 0.5 seconds, 70mm (using the RF 24-70mm F2.8L IS), though not perfect.

That’s 5 1/3 stops of assistance, and it took me three tries to get a result that good. In theory I should be able to get down to 3.2 seconds with this combo, which is never, ever going to happen (at least for me). You can get slightly better results focusing on a more distant subject, but even a one second exposure is going to be rare, in my experience, and I’m still very stable with my hands.

The IBIS works well for video, particularly when you are trying to frame static shots handheld. It works to compensate when moving, but don’t expect footage while moving to be as smooth as working from a gimbal. There are still limits to any IBIS system, but having some stabilization for all of your lenses is fabulous. You can even input the focal length for stabilizing lenses without any electronic communication, which means I can shoot with my vintage Takumars and have image stabilization!

This shot (of the SMC Takumar 35mm F3.5) was taken with the SMC Takumar 50mm F1.4 wide open on the R6, and it remains a fun lens to pull out on occasion. Getting stabilization with it (the shot above was taken at 1/40th of a second) is a welcome bonus. Canon’s IBIS is nicely executed and is arguably better than competing systems.

There’s some minor physical differences from the EOS R5, with a few different texture patterns and slightly different lines, but the EOS R6 very closely resembles its much more expensive big brother. There’s a little more polycarbonate in the build and less magnesium alloy (read more plastic and less metal), and the weather sealing is (fittingly) like the 6D line rather than the 5D line, though I suspect it is probably still better than what you’ll find on equivalent Sony bodies. All told this is a nicely built camera with fantastic ergonomics. There are relatively few places where the camera feels “crippled” relative to the R5.

Canon EOS R6 Autofocus

While the EOS R6 is an excellent camera on many levels, I believe that its chief advantage relative to the competitive has to be in its focus and tracking capabilities where it is truly impressive. The EOS R in many ways had a very impressive focus system as well, with 5655 “selectable” (probably a bit euphemistic) AF points that cover essentially the whole sensor (100% of the vertical area and 88% of the horizontal). It had a fantastic low light sensitivity of down to -6 EV with certain lenses (at -6 EV you can scarcely see your subject). Focus speed was blazingly fast with good lenses. It was held back initially be an awkward “Pupil Detect” that didn’t work with Continuous AF (kind of pointless!), though that was later solved and improved via firmware. What really held things back, however, is that while the EOS R had a fantastic focus system, that focus system was paired with a truly lackluster ability to track action with any kind of speed. Best case scenario was 5FPS with AF, though if you wanted the “Tracking Priority” mode you got a truly pathetic 3 FPS. I once was out on a shoot with a Sony a9 with the FE 200-600G lens mounted, and happened to have an EOS R with the 24-240mm with me. I made the mistake of switching over from the a9 to the EOS R during the action (just to get in a few shots with the 24-240mm that I was testing), and I thought I had died and gone to hell. The tracking itself was okay, but the burst rate was so slow by comparison that I felt like I had gone back a few decades.

16-Canon-EOS-R5-AF-points-full-coverage-700x467

The EOS R6 is the quantum leap forward, though, and while the focus specs are shared with the EOS R5, and the EOS R6 is arguably the better camera for tracking action due to having lower resolution (and avoiding some of the complications due to pushing dozens of high resolution files through the pipeline in a burst). We’ve got a 5,940 AF Point, Dual Pixel CMOS AF II system with 1053 available AF zones. It has the EOS ITR AF X deep learning AI focus harvested from the top of the line 1Dx MKIII, and now has both human and animal eye detect that making tracking action so effortless that it hardly requires skill anymore. I’m not saying that in a negative fashion; using a camera like the EOS R6 or EOS R5 makes you feel like a hero. The EOS R6 can focus in as little as 0.05 seconds, which is a class-leading figure for a full frame mirrorless camera. Autofocus is also functional in light levels as low as -6.5EV (slightly better than the EOS R5’s -6 EV), which is roughly the same illumination as is provided by a half-moon, but they’ve also increased the headroom from +18 EV to +20 EV (incredibly bright conditions), which means that the EOS R6 can theoretically focus in an unbelievable 26 stops of lighting conditions. Add to this that the EOS R6 can also focus with maximum apertures as small as F22 (remember when the 5D Mark IV’s F8 was a big deal?), allowing teleconverters to be used with very slow-aperture lenses like the new RF 600mm F11 IS STM and RF 800mm F11 IS STM. I’m not sure how important those marginal performances are to most people, but what it really means is that there are basically no “normal” situations a photographer will find themselves in where the EOS R6 will not be able to effectively focus.

My torture test with the EOS R6 was tracking our King Charles Cavalier Spaniel while she chased a ball at speed (in the snow) towards the camera. She is very dark around the eyes (providing additional challenges), but the ability to track her action was mostly effortless. I had sequences with dozens and dozens of frames where each frame was perfectly focused.

And that was using the Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS USM II, a lens that is theoretically adapted to the RF system (though truthfully it has never worked better!) It is the essentially perfect adaption of EF lenses that helps ease the sting of transitioning to the EOS R cameras.

I noted that what really held back the EOS R was the very poor burst rate while having tracking, but the EOS R6 has no such problem. It’s mechanical shutter is capable of an effortless 12FPS while tracking across the frame, and you can switch to an electronic shutter for an even faster 20FPS with tracking. The latter has no blackout in the viewfinder, and the electronic shutter is so silent that you hardly know you are taking (many) photos. This puts the EOS R6 essentially on equal playing field with the Sony a9 series, with similar burst rates and lack of blackout. The buffer is even more robust, too, with the capacity of up to 240 RAW (500+Compressed RAW) vs 239 RAW (a9II) or 180 RAW for the EOS R5 (240+ CRAW). Those numbers drop a bit when using the 20FPS electronic shutter, but are still high enough that buffer depth will rarely (if ever) be a problem. One can easily get close to 200 RAW images even when using 20 FPS. There isn’t much of a practical limit for JPEGs at all, and boredom will most likely kick in before the buffer fills.

I went through my hard charging sequences and found that even when using 20 FPS electronic my frame rate never dropped. I always got the 20 FPS, which hasn’t always been true with my Sony a9. What’s more, I would look down after a sequence and expect to see the buffer clearing, but always found the camera ready to go. Most of these bursts were 45-70 shots deep.

Unlike with the EOS R5, where I felt like I got mildly better focused results with Mechanical vs Electronic shutter, the EOS R6 delivered equally good levels of focus using both methods. I literally went through sequences of fast action involving 50+ shots and found every one of them perfectly focused. That’s not to say that every one of the 500+ shots that I took during the session were all perfect, but misses were rare and typically not by much. They often occurred when there was a quick cut to the side by my subject and I didn’t react quickly enough. But even when she dived into the snow after the ball, tracking was typically great in those moments.

Eye AF works a charm, with instant real-time lock on the eyes that stays locked on as you move the camera around or your subject moves. It makes shooting portraits, events, or even video so easy. For the shot below, I had my wife (not a professional) take a quick shot where I deliberately used a hood to both add challenge and give a quick shot more mood. I also set an 85mm lens at only F1.6, so depth of field at this range was very shallow. You can tell that focus is nailed, however.

Bottom line is that in every metric, this is one of the best focus systems in the world. It’s fast, flexible, accurate, and easy to maximize…just like the EOS R5, but arguably a bit better due to having less data to have to process. The focus system, burst rate, buffer, and tracking capabilities of the Canon EOS R6 are all top notch. This is a camera equally good for portrait, event, wildlife, and sports photographers. When have you been able to say that?

EOS R6 Video Specs and Performance

It is on the topic of video that the Canon EOS R5 (and, to a lesser extend, the EOS R6) has actually been most divisive. In many ways the EOS R6 has superior video codecs and framerates to the majority of its direct competitors, but in true Canon style there are still a few controversial points.

I was a couple of months late to the EOS R5 , and even later getting to the EOS R6, and by this point the invariable “Canon Controversy” that comes with every new major Canon launch has already crested and started to recede as the drama kings and queens of YouTube have moved on to other controversies. The controversy this time is on the subject of overheating; a place that Sony knows well from a few years ago. Most of the criticisms have been focused on the EOS R5, as it is the camera that really pushes the envelope on resolutions and firm rates, but Canon does acknowledge that there are some limits with the EOS R6 as well, though they remain less confining. Here’s what Canon indicates the limits on the R6 to be:

4K 60P
– 94% sensor width: 30 minutes
– APS-C crop (5.1K oversampled): 45 minutes

4K 30P
– 94% sensor width: not limited by heat
– APS-C crop (5.1K oversampled): 40 minutes

For many photographers, these are not overly restrictive figures, but the bigger problem for others is that heat buildup is cumulative, and both videos and (to a much lesser extent) stills do contribute to heat, meaning that these recording limits might be cut into by previous activity. The camera will need to cool down for a good while before you can expect to see anything near those recording limits again. Bottom line is that if you want to do long periods of high resolution recording (4K60), you might want to choose a dedicated cine camera instead (or at least have a couple of EOS R6 bodies to allow one to cool off in between). I’m testing the camera in Canada in the winter, so external heat isn’t exactly a problem for me. Firmware updates have also helped the camera deal with heat more intelligently, so I suspect most shooters will never have an issue with overheating.

As for recording modes, here’s what Canon says, “Powered by the DIGIC X image processor, the EOS R6 is designed with the video content creator in mind. With oversampled UHD 4K recording at up to 60fps, Full-HD 1080p recording at up to 60fps and Full-HD High-frame rate recording at up to 120fps, the EOS R6 is a versatile camera with options for a variety of different shooting scenarios. Featuring internally recorded 4:2:2 10-bit H.265 Canon Log recording, and 4:2:2 10-bit H.265 HDR PQ recording, regardless what your timeline for delivery may be, advanced users will find EOS R6 capable of capturing confidently even during challenging high-contrast exposure situations. Moreover, oversampled UHD 4K 4:2:2 10-bit video signal at up to 60fps can be output from the HDMI port with a choice of either Picture Style, Canon Log or HDR PQ format, the output can be recorded to another device externally, or the footage can be viewed on an HDR PQ compatible TV. Additionally, high-end features such as Interval Timer, 4K Time-Lapse mode, Mic and Headphone jacks, and Zebras are available to provide advanced-level control and versatility to the video content creator.“

I’ve got only one criticism here, and it is really a criticism of a weird choice to “cripple” the camera. Canon has elected to give you limited control modes for video recording. The R5 gives you the full suite of AV, TV, M, A, etc… modes that you would have for stills, but the EOS R6 arbitrarily limits you to the two extremes: full Program (Auto) mode or fully Manual (M) modes.

That’s the most egregious example of cutting a common feature just to give you market separation, and it unnecessarily limits what is in many other ways a fantastic video camera. The EOS R6 remains a great video camera in a number of ways, though.

First of all, that amazing focus system remains intact for video work. There is only slightly less active focus points for video (4500), which means that the camera is tracking across the screen. It locks effectively onto eyes and stays rock steady as the subject moves around. While not quite as sensitive for video, we still get a -4 EV, meaning that the camera can track action for video in very low light (as always, that will be somewhat dependent on the lens you have attached.)

Secondly, you get away from that terrible 4K crop on the EOS R. The crop is an essentially unnoticeable 1.07x and gives you nicely oversampled 4K footage that is extremely crisp. You can choose an APS-C mode if you want a tighter framing, shoot high resolution timelapses, and up to 60FPS in 4k (most competitors are still at 30/4K), though you’ll have drop to Full HD if you want to do slow-motion 120p footage. There are less options than the EOS R5, though. You don’t get the option for DCI 4K or the higher resolution All-I codecs. You do have C-Log options for “flatter” footage for grading along with HDR-PQ if you want HDR footage. And the actual footage looks great, so I suspect that most typical hybrid photographers who do some video will be more than happy with what they get outside of not being to shoot in AV mode. There are certainly far fewer compromises than what we saw on either the EOS R or the RP!

Canon EOS R6 Sensor Performance

While the EOS R5 debuted with a completely new Canon sensor, the R6 utilizes the 20.1 MP sensor from the flagship Canon 1Dx MK III. This is a very good sensor, and the kinds of sports photographers who are most likely to buy the 1D series value quality of pixels over quantity of pixels.

The resolution point is lower than competing cameras, obviously, and file dimensions are just 5472×3648 pixels, much smaller than the R5’s massive 8102 x 5462 pixels. Not everyone needs a massive amount of resolution, obviously, and there’s no question this sensor is capable of producing highly detailed images with good dynamic range and a strong high ISO performance.

We’ll explore that performance in some detail here, through the definitive video review may be the best place to really see the sensor performance firsthand.

ISO Performance

The EOS R6 has a native range that runs up to 102,400 – higher than most all competing cameras. That’s either confidence or hubris.

Fortunately, it seems much more of the former…within reason. There’s no need to worry about lower ISO values; there is little difference in image quality even up to ISO 6400. You can see a faint amount of pattern noise, but detail, contrast, and color are highly similar to base ISO (on the left).

Even at a pixel level, one must look very critically to find places where the image quality is eroded. I can see some faint pattern noise in the shadow to the right of the timer face.

All things considered, though, that’s very clean.

Moving up another few stops to ISO 25,600 (which I consider the new ISO 6400 these days due to sensor improvements) shows us that while the noise pattern has become rougher and more obvious, there is otherwise little change to the image. The red might be a little less intense than at ISO 6400 due to the pattern noise, but that’s about it.

ISO 51,200 shows a little more of a hit. The noise has become pronounced enough that shadows are raising and contrast is being lost. What I’m not seeing, however, is any kind of color banding, blotching, or a color cast damaging the image.

In fact, if you look at the image globally, it still looks pretty usable for many applications. Impressive stuff.

If I downsample the EOS R5’s image to the resolution of the EOS R6, I can still clearly see that the R6 has an advantage at ISO 51,200. It’s delivering much better contrast and color fidelity, whereas the R5 (a very good performer for a high resolution camera) shows some banding and loss of contrast.

I would easily say that the EOS R6 has a full stop ISO advantage over the R5, which means that it has an advantage over many cameras.

My rule of thumb is that the last stop of ISO performance on most cameras is only there for marketing, and that proves here. There’s a BIG drop-off in image quality if you move on to ISO 102,400:

I would avoid this, obviously, and use ISO 25,600 as your normal limit and ISO 51,200 for your emergency limit.

Bottom line is that between the amazing autofocus in low light and the excellent high ISO performance, the Canon EOS R6 is definitely a low light monster.

Dynamic Range

Dynamic range is an important metric for evaluating sensor performance, as more dynamic range does you give more tools for controlling the look of images…though it should not abused. I value dynamic range within a camera in two specific areas: the ability to cleanly lift shadows without introducing noise or color banding and the ability to recover highlights without introducing “hot spots” where information has been permanently lost. The value of good dynamic range is in the margins of photography, as eliminating shadows or recovering blown out highlights doesn’t always produce the better image. Having good dynamic range (particularly if you shoot RAW), allows you a lot more creative vision over how the final image will turn out. The site Photons to Photos allows you to compare the sensors of a number of different cameras when it comes to dynamic range, and according to their metrics the sensor in the EOS R6 lacks a bit behind that of the EOS R5. This isn’t surprising, as the R5 is being touted as Canon’s best sensor for dynamic range output to date. The gap between Canon and Nikon/Sony (a bit of shared sensor technology there) used to be quite wide, but in the recent years Canon has managed to close that gap. At most ISO values the performance of the EOS R6 trails that of a camera like the Sony a7III but ever-so-slightly bests the Nikon Z6 (according to Photons to Photos).

While the EOS R6 isn’t necessarily Canon’s best when it comes to dynamic range, it does deliver a strong performance that allows me to recover information in shadows along with highlights with a little care.

Though I find it a little hard to assign a rating in stops to dynamic range through my tests, I do have a highly repeatable scenario that clearly shows me a camera’s capability to cleanly recover shadows and highlights in a more practical, observable way.

Like most modern cameras, the Canon EOS R6 is fabulous at recovering shadows. You can take a deeply underexposed (four stop) image and recover it completely with little penalty.

Details completely lost in the shadows emerge and black levels don’t become corrupted with discoloration. A strong performance here, and a pixel level look at the shadows show that no discernable noise has been introduced.

Recovering highlights is inevitably a more difficult task for any camera system. A clean four stop shadow recovery is not unusual, but I typically find that the highlight recovery falls apart between about 2-3 stops. That’s true of the EOS R6 as well. Two stops of highlight recovery is no problem, but at three stops of overexposure you can see a hot-spot along the right side of the Veneer book where a blown out area has not been fully recovered. This isn’t bad, though.

If we go one stop further, however, everything falls apart. You can see from the image below that blown out highlights are simply beyond recovery.

If we go back to the three stop recovery for a moment (with a downsampled R5 comparison), we can see that the differences in highlight recovery between the two cameras are very subtle. The R5’s strength is shown in that the recovered image is slightly brighter, with marginally better contrast. A few blown out areas are retained just a tiny bit better…but I’m not sure you’d notice without them side by side…

…and you may not see it from this comparison even with them side by side!

There are similarly mild areas in the four stop recovery where the R5 is better, but I’m not sure in the real world this is going to make much of a difference. My advice for Canon shooters (and most cameras in general!) has always been to slightly underexposure when you want big dynamic range. Recovering shadows is easier than recovering highlights. Canon essentially does this if you use their “Highlight Tone Priority” setting. It sets the base ISO at 200, but then takes the highlights from the ISO 100 image (slightly underexposed) while giving you a normal exposure in the shadows and midrange of the image. This basically gives you an extra stop of highlight recovery…though they warn potentially at the cost of more noise in the shadows. We’ve already seen that shadow recovery is excellent, however, so I don’t really see a big risk there. There are two levels of this: D+ and D+2. Canon is a bit vague on what distinguishes the two, essentially just saying that D+2 attempts to recover more highlight data but potentially at the cost of more impact on the image. I couldn’t discern much of a difference between the two in my tests. There’s not really a lot going on here that you couldn’t do by underexposing and then recovering shadows, but here’s the comparison between the two.

Since you have to use a base ISO of 200, that makes the equivalent 4 stop overexposure figure 0.8 shutter speed rather than 0.4. You are essentially looking at the four stops of overexposure to the image overall, but with only three stops of overexposure in the highlights (which are taken from ISO 100). Reducing exposure by four stops (as I’ve done with both images above) creates a properly exposed image on the right that has much more highlight information available…and I don’t see any damage to the shadows. This isn’t actually increasing the dynamic range of the camera (that is fixed), but it is using a little electronic trickery to give you a little extra. It’s probably worth experimenting with if you want to shoot scenes with a lot of lighting variance, but there’s also this reality: more dynamic range doesn’t necessarily make for better images. Sometimes crushed shadows or blown highlights make for a better image, so you have to learn to utilize dynamic range wisely. Just because you can do something doesn’t necessarily mean that you should in every situation.

Resolution

We have entered a phase where cameras are giving us the kinds of resolution that were once only available with Medium Format and beyond. Sony’s recent 61Mpx a7RIV gives an almost silly amount of resolution, and I actually criticized the fact that while that resolution has its uses, Sony has not give photographers options on choosing less resolution when needed. Canon has long included options like MRAW or SRAW (lower resolution points while retaining RAW capabilities). Interestingly, however, Canon has actually moved more in Sony’s direction with the EOS R5 and R6, as you don’t have a MRaw or SRaw option here. Instead, you have a RAW or CRaw option (Compressed RAW). The CRaw option takes up less space (due to the compression), but is actually still 20MP on the EOS R5. Sony also gives you the choice of Compressed or Uncompressed RAW. On average, CRaw will save you about 40% on average in storage size, and, like Sony’s Compressed vs Uncompressed), you are unlikely to spot the difference except in the most extreme of situations.

In my test, the RAW file was 22.2MB while the CRAW was 14 MB, so close to a 40% space savings. In my tests, however, there is little discernable differences between the files even when side by side, though I tend to use CRAW more on the EOS R5 than R6 because, frankly, the file size on the R6 isn’t very big anyway and I would prefer to get maximum bang for the buck. You may feel otherwise, so just know that you probably won’t be able to tell the difference without the images side by side…and maybe not even then.

As I noted previously, I actually find the images from the EOS R6 to have great detail. They look fantastic at a pixel level, and I think for most applications the 20MP of resolution is probably enough. What you do lose, however, is the ability to crop very much before you start running out of pixels. You can, for example, shoot in APS-C mode on the R6 (to accommodate EF-S lenses or for more “in-camera” reach), but Canon’s 1.6x crop results in only 7.7MP of resolution remaining; a far cry from the 17MP in the EOS R5’s APS-C mode. That’s not enough resolution to be genuinely useful to me for many applications, though it might still be fine for reportage or in a pinch.

For me the resolution of the EOS R6 is fine if I can frame the image properly in camera. I want any cropping to be minor so I still have enough usable pixels for more applications.

There’s nice, useful detail there, as you can see in the crop.

That’s also true here, where in this landscape scene you can still see a lot of useful detail in the crop.

I’m a bit of a perfectionist, so I like having high resolution in my some of my cameras, but I also like to choose the right tool for the job. On the Sony side I currently own a Sony a7RIII (42MP) and a Sony a9 (24MP). I reach for the camera that I think fits my needs in a particular setting. Sometimes I want/need the higher resolution, while other times I don’t want it (events and or sports/action are two examples). I would have preferred seeing 24 MP in the EOS R6 to match the competition, but I vastly prefer the sensor performance of the EOS R6 to the current Canon 24MP full frame sensor found in the EOS RP or Canon 6D Mark II, so I’m glad they chose use the superior sensor here…even if it comes at the cost of a bit of resolution.

I had only one other sensor complaint, and that was that I found a trend towards underexposure in files that was aggravated when using wide angle lenses (just like the EOS R5). I essentially needed to dial in about 2/3rds of a stop of EV compensation when shooting with the Samyang AF 14mm F2.8 RF or Canon RF 24-70mm F2.8L IS to get proper exposure. I also found that images were sometimes more underexposed when I got them into Lightroom than what I could see in camera. There could be a quirk between Canon and Adobe at play as well. I’m sure either firmware or software updates will improve this behavior in time, but it was unchanged from my EOS R5 review until doing this R6 review. Overall, however, the EOS R6 has a good sensor that brings very good ISO performance, and competitive dynamic range results while also giving you the delightful Canon colors that are so widely lauded. I would recommend a visit to the image galleries to see photos taken with a variety of lenses.

Conclusion

While the Canon EOS R5 was my most highly anticipated camera of the year (and one I’ve already purchased), the Canon EOS R6 is also a very compelling model that leverages a lot of the technological strengths both of the Canon 1Dx MKIII and the EOS R5 into a fairly complete package at a much lower price point. There are a few areas when Canon has intentionally “crippled” the camera for market separation, but thankfully they’ve spared us a lot of the typical head-scratching obvious cuts. I find most of the differences between the EOS R5 and EOS R6 to be fairly logical. In most cases these feel like upgrades on the more expensive model rather than intentional gouging of the less expensive model. In almost every way the EOS R6 is fully competitive with offerings from other companies near its price point, and there are certainly areas where it betters them.

While I certainly wouldn’t have minded a whole new sensor like what we saw in the EOS R5, the choice to utilize the very competent 20.1MP sensor from the 1Dx MK III was a sound one. I vastly prefer it to the 24MP one found on the RP. The sensor showed a superior high ISO performance, good dynamic range, and, also always, very pleasing Canon colors.

The IBIS system works well, the ergonomics are excellent, but while these are both superior to the competition, the true greatest advantage has to be in the fabulous autofocus system and deep buffers. This is a sporting camera to rival the a9’s and 1D’s of the world in many ways, capable of brilliantly tracking and capturing fast action.

The EOS R6 has one great challenge, however, and that will be to perceived in the market as superior to cameras like the Sony a7III and the Nikon Z6 (and even the Canon EOS R), as those cameras have had their prices drift ever downward due to being out for a while. This holiday season they will all have deep discounts, while the newly released EOS R6 will have to compete on merit rather than discount. The EOS R5 continues to have a demand that outstrips supply (in December of 2020), but the R6 is widely available here in Canada or in the US. The question for many will be if the advantages the R6 offers are worth the price premium over competing models. Ultimately that is a question that only you can answer for yourself, but I can say this: the Canon EOS R6 certainly has many, many merits that make it worthy of consideration.

Pros:

Great ergonomics – easy to learn, easy to love
Canon’s IBIS system is the best I’ve used thus far
Fabulous focus system
Great eye tracking for humans and animals
Deep buffers that clear near instantly
Quality viewfinder – option for smooth tracking is useful
Articulating touchscreen is high resolution and highly responsive
Amazing low light performance for both the sensor and AF system
4K/60P video better than many competitors
Good ISO performance and dynamic range

Cons:

Lower resolution might discourage some potential buyers
Overheating issues in some situations
In-camera charging requires a power-send source
Canon RF lenses are still tilted to the large and expensive end of the spectrum
EOS R6 more expensive than many competing models

Gear Used:

Purchase a Canon EOS R6 @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Purchase a Canon EOS R5 @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Purchase a Canon RF 24-70mm F2.8L IS @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Purchase a Canon RF 15-35mm F2.8L IS @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay
Purchase a Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Peak Design Slide Lite: Peak Design Store | B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK
Peak Design Leash Strap: Peak Design Store | B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK
BenQ SW271 4K Photo Editing Monitor – B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon.ca | Amazon UK
Adobe Photoshop Creative Cloud 1-Year Subscription
Exposure Software X5 (Use Code “dustinabbott” to get 10% anything and everything)
Visit Dustin’s Amazon Storefront and see his favorite gear

Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. You can also make a donation here if you would like. Visit my Amazon page for some of my gear of choice! Thank you for your support.

Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52018DA in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!

Use Code “DUSTINHDR” to get $10 off ($15 CDN) any Skylum product: Luminar, Aurora, or AirMagic

Keywords: Canon EOS R6, EOS, R6, EOS R6, mirrorless, full frame, EOS R6 Review, Canon R6 Review, Canon EOS R6 Review, Dustin Abbott, Real World, Comparison, Handling, Dynamic Range, Tracking, Focus, Burst Rate, Tracking, Sports, Portraits, Resolution, High ISO, Image Quality, Sample Images, Photography, Dogs, Ergonomics, 20Mpx, Sony a9, RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS, RF 24-70mm F2.8L IS, Canon

DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Canon EOS R6 Image Gallery

Dustin Abbott

December 9th, 2020

While it was the Canon EOS R5 (my review here) that grabbed my attention personally (it is very close to being a perfect camera for my uses), it was the Canon EOS R6 that was even more interesting to others due to the R5 being overkill for many photographers in both resolution and price. Canon’s initial branding strategy with the EOS R and then the RP were a bit muddled, as while the EOS R inherited the sensor of the 5D Mark IV and the RP the sensor of the 6D Mark II, neither of those camera were really mirrorless equivalents of those cameras. Canon seems to be reconciling their branding to their traditional 5 series and 6 series lineups with the R5 and R6, though both cameras have moved upscale in terms of performance and price alike.

The market position of the original EOS R relative to the R6 is a little murky, as while the R6 has a number of clear advantages (IBIS, much faster burst rate and tracking capabilities, dual card slots, much better video specs), the EOS R has a few upscale features withheld from the R6 (top plate LCD screen, higher resolution). It’s obvious that the EOS R6 is the more complete camera, however, and it is priced accordingly. It retails for $2499 USD, about $200 higher than what the EOS R did at launch. The new EOS R5 is considerably more expensive, however, with a MSRP of $3899 USD, making it one of the most expensive cameras in its class. Ironically, however, it feels like it is the EOS R6 may have a slightly more difficult time justifying its price, as in many ways the EOS R5 combines the resolution of Sony a7R series and the performance of the a9 series. It is more expensive than what the 5D Mark IV was at launch ($3499), but is also has a number of class leading innovations along with higher performance. The $400 premium over the 5DIV feels somewhat justified to many 5 series photographers (who are more likely to be either working professionals or more affluent amateurs…and many of us thought it would be priced even higher!), but the EOS R6 happens to land in a lull where market forces have driven down the price of direct competitors like the Sony a7III or the Nikon Z6 to the $2000 USD (or less) range (those cameras can currently be had for considerably less than $2000). The original EOS R can be had for around $1800 at this point. Photographers in this price range are far more likely to be concerned with price and less likely to be deeply invested in one particular camera brand in terms of lenses and/or accessories. It is fairly easy to position the EOS R5 as the best in its class; can the same be said for the EOS R6?

The 20Mpx of resolution may give some potential buyers pause, however, as they wonder if even the difference between the 20Mpx of the EOS R6 and the 24Mpx of competitors like the Sony a7III or Nikon Z6 is going to be noticeable. We’ve already determined that the EOS R6 can’t really compete on price, so it will have to compete on merit. In many ways the EOS R6 is (like the R5) a joy to use. It has great ergonomics, a good sensor, and a great autofocus system. In fact, the tracking abilities of the camera may be the single greatest reason to consider one. But is the EOS R6 the camera for you? Is it worth $500 more than its main competitors? Check out the image galleries below to get a sense of the camera, and look for my text and video reviews as well!

Photos of the Canon EOS R6

Photos Taken with the Canon EOS R6

Gear Used:

Purchase a Canon EOS R6 @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Purchase a Canon EOS R5 @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Purchase a Canon RF 24-70mm F2.8L IS @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Purchase a Canon RF 15-35mm F2.8L IS @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay
Purchase a Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Peak Design Slide Lite: Peak Design Store | B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK
Peak Design Leash Strap: Peak Design Store | B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK
BenQ SW271 4K Photo Editing Monitor – B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon.ca | Amazon UK
Adobe Photoshop Creative Cloud 1-Year Subscription
Exposure Software X5 (Use Code “dustinabbott” to get 10% anything and everything)
Visit Dustin’s Amazon Storefront and see his favorite gear

Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. You can also make a donation here if you would like. Visit my Amazon page for some of my gear of choice! Thank you for your support.

Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52018DA in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!

Use Code “DUSTINHDR” to get $10 off ($15 CDN) any Skylum product: Luminar, Aurora, or AirMagic

Keywords: Canon EOS R6, EOS, R6, EOS R6, mirrorless, full frame, EOS R6 Review, Canon R6 Review, Canon EOS R6 Review, Dustin Abbott, Real World, Comparison, Handling, Dynamic Range, Tracking, Focus, Burst Rate, Tracking, Sports, Portraits, Resolution, High ISO, Image Quality, Sample Images, Photography, Dogs, Ergonomics, 20Mpx, Sony a9, RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS, RF 24-70mm F2.8L IS, Canon

DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS Review

Dustin Abbott

November 2nd, 2020

Canon has promised us that the new RF mount has created the potential for a lot of new lens innovation and development. There’s certainly been evidence of that, and one of the most intriguing applications has been Canon’s surprisingly compact RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM. I was fortunate enough to get to review one while I reviewed the new Canon EOS R5, and it proved an excellent match for that camera. Canon has managed to give us the performance of their typical pro-grade 70-200mm F2.8L IS, but in a package that is nearly 30% lighter and shorter. The tradeoff is that the RF 70-200mm is not internally zooming, so it does extend some when zooming, but I’m loving the tradeoff due to the unique portability I get from the lens. I’ve got an 8L Messenger Bag (I reviewed it here), and, if I skip the lens hood, I’m able to carry it upright in that bag attached to my EOS R5. That leaves room for a second lens in the bag, extending my versatility even while traveling light. That fact alone really makes the RF 70-200L (as I’ll refer to it for brevity in this review) attractive to me, personally.

The RF 70-200L is the telephoto member of the “trinity” of wide aperture, professional-grade zooms for Canon’s relatively new full frame mirrorless ecosystem built around the RF mount. It’s not by accident that some of the earliest lenses to come in the RF mount were the RF 15-35mm F2.8L IS, the RF 24-70mm F2.8L IS, and the RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS, as these constitute the common tools of the trade that many photographers who actually earn a living by photography will use. I’ve shot most weddings and events that I’ve covered using a 24-70 and a 70-200mm F2.8 mounted on two cameras, as there are few shots you cannot get with that combination. This is the first time that Canon has had all three lenses stabilized. It hasn’t been atypical for the 70-200mm to have IS (it is most needed at telephoto focal lengths), but this is the first time that Canon has given us both an F2.8 aperture and IS in their wide angle and standard zooms. And now these as further augmented by the IBIS in the new EOS R5 and R6, and the byproduct is that the RF 70-200L is rated at an incredible 7.5 stops. I saw the value of this on the day I’m working on this section of the review, as my wife had grabbed my EOS R5 with the RF 70-200L mounted on it and taken a picture of my assistant and I at church as I was honoring him. The problem was that she didn’t give any attention to the ISO setting, which turned out to be ISO 100. The shutter speed was only 1/10th of a second, and yet the image is sharp and stable.

So what’s the bad news? Well, in typical Canon fashion, the price tag is going to make you feel like having a little cry before you pull out your credit card. At $2700 USD, the RF 70-200mm is priced at nearly 30% higher than the most recent EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS III. Apparently 30% less lens is going to cost you 30% more. Also sacrificed at the altar of compactness is the ability to use teleconverters, so this lens is strictly going to be used with its existing zoom range. These negatives aside, however, I’ve found the RF 70-200mm to be a rather indispensable tool, great for tracking action, for portraits, for video work, and for general purpose photography. It’s such a flexible zoom range, and the wide maximum aperture gives one a lot of options.

If you would prefer to watch your reviews, you can choose either my long format definitive review or shorter standard review below.

Thanks to Camera Canada for getting me a loaner of the RF 70-200mm. If you’re in Canada, check them out for a reliable online retailer.

Canon RF 70-200L Build and Features

This is really the first time that Canon has reinvented this focal range in terms of their design since they first switched from the 80-200mm range to the 70-200mm range. That lens, the Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L, was released in March of 1995, and, since that point, Canon has made revisions to that basic design by adding IS in 2001 along with MK II (2010) and MK III (2018) revisions. One would have to look closely to see the differences between the basic design over the nearly 25 years, as all of them were within 5mm of each other in length and 4mm in diameter. They were all long (typically close to 200mm or nearly 8 inches) and heavy (right under 1500g or right over 3 1/4 pounds). Each was an internally zooming and focusing design, with a fixed length.

But Canon clearly saw an opportunity to reimagine this focal range and aperture combination in a less formidable package for mirrorless. Some of Canon’s RF mount lenses have been smaller than their EF counterparts (but not all), and typically those that are smaller aren’t by an substantial margin. The F1.2 primes have been considerably larger. The RF 70-200L provides perhaps the most compelling version of downsizing that we’ve seen on the RF mount, as this is a lens that is genuinely much smaller than its predecessors. It is more than 50mm shorter (146mm vs 199mm) than the most recent Mark III version of the EF lens, and weighs substantially less at 1070g vs 1480g. This really, really changes the dynamic of how a lens like this can be used. There are many more storage alternatives. It actually fits in my messenger bag (not well, but it fits!). That reduced size and weight makes the lens less intimidating to use, with far less wincing when those not accustomed to using heavy gear. I suspect that if I owned this lens, I would reach for it more often than I would my 70-200mm F2.8 lenses of the past simply because it is easier to bring it along.

This major design decision does bring some negatives, however. The single most important is that there is a rear glass element only about a centimeter from the back of the lens at 70mm, which means that there is no physical room for a teleconverter (either 1.4x or 2x) to be added. This is a serious loss, as many people have treated the EF versions of the lens as their main telephoto option if they occasionally need longer reach. Adding a 1.4x or 2x TC meant that they could also have a 280mm F4 lens or 400mm F5.6 lens, and the 70-200L II or III actually handled TCs quite well. That flexibility is now lost, and one must just use the lens in its natural zoom range alone.

The second issue is probably less serious, though it may not be perceived as such by some. Lost is the internally zooming design, as the RF 70-200L will extend significantly when zoomed to 200mm.

This, of course, is what allows the smaller dimensions, and I also find that it helps with the weight distribution, as the majority of the lens’ weight is near the camera where it is more easily supported. The problem is that there is a fairly common perception that an externally zooming lens is not sealed nearly as well. The fear is that a lens that zooms externally is going to be more prone to issues with dust and moisture. I’m not Roger Cicala over at LensRentals (whom I consider to be the resident guru on teardowns and knowing what is going on inside of gear), but the single best comparison in lens design that I have experience with was the EF 70-300mm F4-5.6L IS. This lens was a bit of an oddball at its release because it defied a lot of Canon’s norms for L-series lenses. It was a variable aperture, externally zooming lens at a focal range that hadn’t ever gotten the L series treatment before. It was treated with a lot of suspicion. Was it really an “L” lens? Would it be robust enough for professional use, even safari conditions? I personally took a flier on one while I owned the very good EF 70-200mm F4L IS, and, after a month of ownership, I sold the 70-200mm.

I loved the 70-300L.

I loved how compact it could get while retaining a build like a tank. Because it was compact, it went on trips with me to a variety of countries in North America, Europe, and the Middle East. I loved the image quality, as it was both sharp throughout the range but also had really beautiful bokeh. The rendering from the lens kept giving me images that I really loved.

There was often an overlap where I owned both the 70-300L and a 70-200mm F2.8, but when I traveled, it was always the 70-300L that came along because it traveled so much easier. And, despite traveling often with a lens that extended when it zoomed, I never had problems with dust or moisture intrusion, because the lens was well built and well-sealed. I think this is a great point of comparison for the new RF 70-200L, because the physical design of the two lenses is highly similar. The 70-300L is 143mm (3mm shorter) and weighs 1050g (only 20g less). The weight distribution and physical dimensions are highly similar, and, like the 70-300L, the RF lens has received a high level of weather sealing to make sure it is ready for professional use in the elements.

This includes receiving a fluorine coating on the front and rear elements (resists dust, oils, and moisture and makes them easier to clean), internal seals at all switches, rings, and transition points, a substantial gasket at the lens mount, and even Canon’s new anti-vibration technology that allows the lens to absorb some of the bumps and knocks that come as a part of professional use without becoming damaged or decentered. Again, I’m no Roger, but I suspect that Canon has done its homework on sealing this new, incredibly important lens, and I think it will hold up to the rigors of professional use just fine.

As is traditional, the RF 70-200L comes with a tripod collar and case. The tripod collar is downsized a bit like everything else, and is designed above all for easy removal. It’s less smooth in rotation that other collars that are designed around staying mounted. There are no detents at the cardinal positions, and the movement in rotating it is less smooth, but this is because there is far less room in this particular design for a tripod collar. I suspect that many people will do as I did during my review and mostly leave it off. I only mounted it when shooting from a tripod, which represented about 5% of my total use, and that was mostly for video. I value the tripod collar for doing my formal chart tests, but did find that the lens was light enough and balanced in such a way that it wasn’t a big deal to not use the tripod collar for video work. The weight and balance of the lens make it an easy lens to use handheld. My only real criticism of the tripod foot was that it (in typical Canon fashion) is not Arca-Swiss compatible, which I simply do not understand. Put the groove on there so I can go right to a tripod and avoid having to use a quick release plate! Tamron does it. Sigma does it. It’s time for Canon to do it!

Besides this rant, the handling of the lens is excellent. The unique RF mount control ring is located in a different spot than is typical, moving from the front of the lens to the point nearest the lens mount. This is going to make muscle memory more difficult for many, but fortunately Canon has retained the unique diamond pattern texture on the control ring that makes it easy to distinguish by feel from the other rings.

The control ring can be assigned a variety of different purposes in the camera body. Some will set it for aperture control, others might like exposure compensation, etc… Canon will “declick” the control ring for a fee if you request it.

Next comes the manual focus ring, which moves smoothly but with fairly low resistance or feel. Like other mirrorless lenses, this is a focus by wire arrangement where input on the ring is routed through the focus motor, so the lens must be attached to the camera and the camera must be powered on and the correct focus mode engaged for the ring to do anything. Fortunately many of the EOS R bodies have Canon’s “Focus Guide” which is a clever, innovative approach to manual focus that I really enjoy. I suspect that the focus ring will be rarely used by most people, however, as the focus system on both the lens and most of the cameras it is made for are very sophisticated.

The final ring, near the front, is the zoom ring, and it is wide and nicely damped. The zoom action is smooth. There is a zoom lock on the right side of the barrel that will lock the lens in its retracted 70mm position to keep the lens from “creeping” while carrying it. I definitely found this was needed while out hiking with the lens, where either gravity or friction would definitely make the lens start to extend after a bit.

There is a bank of four switches on the left side of the barrel. The first is a two position focus limiter where you can eliminate close focus distances if required. I never used the focus limiter, as I found autofocus fast enough in all situations that it was unneeded. Second down is an AF/MF switch (always useful), followed by two switches dedicated to the IS system. The first is a simple On/Off for the IS, which is followed then by a three position mode switch. Mode 1 is the standard, multipurpose option. Mode 2 is employed when panning, and the IS will shut down one axis of stabilization to allow you to better track lateral action. Mode 3 is sometimes referred to as a “dynamic mode”, as it focuses less on stabilizing the viewfinder and prioritizes stabilization at capture. This often provides the highest level of stabilization, but also makes looking through the viewfinder more turbulent.

I found the stabilization to be very effective on the RF 70-200L, though I’ve never been successful at handholding ridiculously low shutter speeds. Canon touts a 7.5 stop IS combination with the EOS R5 and R6 cameras (because of their IBIS), but that would imply that at 70mm I should be able to handhold a 2 second shot.

That ain’t happening, folks.

I find there’s a practical limit as you get down towards a one second exposure where just the slow movement of the shutter introduces enough vibration where I don’t get successfully stabilized shots, and that has been true across all platforms. But that doesn’t bother me, as I don’t see a lot of practical value for something like that. What I can say is that I had an easy time capturing an image like the shot below, which, at 1/6th of second and 200mm, represents a full five stops of assistance.

But that was with a static subject indoors. In most environments there is going to be at least a little movement of your subject, so it is much better to keep that shutter speed up at more reasonable levels to help stop the motion of your subject. If I am shooting events, I treat somewhere around 1/125th of a second the bare minimum and prefer 1/200th of a second with a telephoto lens like this.

Where I saw a lot of value in the stabilization was when shooting video. I could handhold video effectively even at 200mm, and if I turned the IS off, the video immediately starting jumping and bouncing. There’s no question this is an effective stabilizer, but you do need to have reasonable expectations of what a stabilizer can and cannot do.

Moving up front, we find a standard 89mm diameter for the lens (that’s the one dimension consistent with earlier lenses) and also the standard 77mm filter thread. If you look inside the lens, you’ll find that the aperture blade count has been increased from 8 to 9 rounded blades, which helps keep a nice circular shape to bokeh highlights when the lens is stopped down.

Finally, the hood. The hood is nicely made of premium materials (and finally matches the lens!), and features both a locking mechanism and a window that can be opened to give easier access to rotating a circular polarizer. Some find this useful while others strongly dislike having the port potentially being open when they don’t want it to be. One of my reviewer colleagues mentions that he actually epoxies the door closed on his lenses. The hood is quite large relative to the size of the lens, but my chief objection is that it flares considerably wider than the diameter of the lens. By my measurement it is nearly 30mm wider, which means that it really increases the footprint of the lens for storage. One of the compromises I have to make if I want to take the lens in my messenger bag is to leave the hood at home, which wouldn’t be the case if the hood was more fitted to the dimensions of the lens.

The most similar lens for mirrorless right now is the Tamron 70-180mm F2.8 VXD, which is made for Sony but hopefully will be ported over to RF in the future. The Tamron is 3mm longer, but is 8mm narrower and weighs in at 260g less. To be fair, the Canon has the additional 20mm of focal length, more features, and a image stabilizer, so I think that Canon has done a pretty great job in downsizing without giving up any features. The RF 70-200mm is pretty wonderfully compact and light with all things considered, and I think that is the single biggest advantage for this lens over alternatives.

One final point to consider is that Canon has made an improvement to how closely the lens can focus. It can now focus down to 70cm rather than the older 1.2m figure, which does give one a little more flexibility in tight spaces. Also improved is the magnification figure, which is now 0.23x rather than 0.21x, though this does point to a bit of focus breathing, as the Sony 70-200mm F2.8 GM focuses down to 96cm and produces a higher 0.25x magnification. Here’s what maximum magnification looks like:

I did find that contrast and detail was lacking a bit at MFD. In this shot (200mm, F2.8), for example, the amount of magnification is impressive and useful, but the amount of detail and contrast is not.

You will see a significant improvement if you stop down to F4 in both contrast and detail, so it is worth doing.

Depth of field is often tiny with such a long focal length anyway, so moving to F4 will still give you a nicely blurred background near minimum focus distances.

All in all, we’ve got a beautifully made lens here that has really changed the reality of what a 70-200mm F2.8 has to be and how it can be used. That, to me, is the most compelling argument for the RF 70-200L, though the lack of compatibility with teleconverters (and the price!) might be the most compelling argument against it.

Autofocus Performance

Canon has employed dual Nano USM motors to drive autofocus in this lens, and after spending extended time with it, I think this was an excellent choice. Canon has typically employed ring-type USM motors in their L series lenses because these focus motors have a lot of torque and deliver good focus speed. Canon started experimenting with STM (stepping motors) in 2012 about the time they started to employ their Dual Pixel AF technology in Live View, which, in many ways was the precursor to mirrorless. The point of STM was to allow for smoother, quieter focus transitions particularly for video. Early STM wasn’t particularly impressive in other ways, as, while smoother, there wasn’t a lot of torque there and focus tended to be slower. STM has steadily improved, however, and when Canon introduced Nano USM, it was an impressive blend of the two types of focus, giving both the quiet, smooth performance of STM along with the speed of USM. Nano USM was mostly employed with lenses with smaller, lighter elements (like variable aperture zooms) because larger, heavier elements needed more torque. Canon has followed the path of other companies like Sony and Fuji by employing multiple Nano USM motors to get that torque and speed. Sony and Fuji often call these type motors “Linear Motors”, and I’ve seen configuration with triple and even quad linear motors to give both speed and smoothness. Canon has really hit the sweet spot here, as the dual Nano USM motors really get the job done here.

First of all, the speed is impressive. Even major focus changes happen near instantly, with zero drama in the process. Focus just jumps from one point to another. I had extremely good results while tracking action with the RF 70-200L in concert with the Canon EOS R5. Even when shooting at a high clip (12FPS or 20 FPS) and with a challenging target (a small, fast dog who is very dark around the eyes charging towards the camera), I was able to get one well-focused result after another.

This is a lens with plenty of speed for sports use, and quick eye detect will help even more in that kind of setting. Both human and animal eye detect work well, and help you get well focused results.

Focus is also extremely quiet, with no apparent sound in ordinary work. Even when recording video focus pulls in a completely silent environment and using the on-board microphone, I could hear only the faintest clicking after focus was locked, which seems like it is more about dispersing the kinetic energy than anything. Focus pulls were smooth and confident, which is a big part of why this technology was developed. This is an excellent lens for video work because focus doesn’t get in the way. It would be a great lens to have mounted in a venue to track the action on the stage. I used it for a number of my YouTube videos, and it showed absolute confidence tracking my face without any drama during those segments.

Eye tracking was very good for an event setting, and meant that it is simple to get great results when shooting in a church, concert, or wedding venue.

Eye Detect obviously makes getting portraits very easy, no matter where you compose.

The focus system in the RF 70-200L is one of its major strengths and further extends the accessibility of this lens to photographers of all skill levels.

Canon RF 70-200L Image Quality

My reputation is built upon fairness and objectivity, and so in the interest of fairness, I’m going to preface this section with two caveats/insights into how I approach lens evaluation. The first is that we as consumers are programmed to expect that every new lens release will be better and better optically no matter what other variables are introduced. The response to the Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS III was immediately muted when the word got out that it wasn’t much better optically than the Mark II version…no matter what else might have improved and changed for the better. Sometimes our expectations aren’t rooted in reality. Canon has dramatically reduced the size of this lens, and our typical response is, “Great! Is it also much better optically?”, without really considering that those two outcomes might not logically, rationally follow. So I will preface this section by saying that while the RF 70-200L isn’t any less sharp than previous Canon 70-200 lenses, neither does it really advance the ball optically. There is one area where I think there is optical improvement which I’ll reference in a moment, but I don’t think this lens is actually sharper than previous Canon (or competing) 70-200mm lenses, despite the wide-spread notion that all RF lenses are radically better than EF lenses.

The second caveat is that I am more critical of very expensive lenses optically than I am of inexpensive ones. I believe that consumers should be able to expect that if they pay a premium price, they should receive a premium performance. Put simply, this lens costs $600 USD more than the last EF 70-200L III version released a couple of years ago. This makes it the most expensive lens in its class (Sony’s A-mount 70-200mm II is more, but is hardly a current lens as Sony seems to have largely abandoned A-mount). It seems fair that this should come with some expectations attached.

As I’ll demonstrate below, I believe that the RF 70-200L largely produces images that I really like on a global level but that I’m not necessarily wowed by on a pixel level.

Now, to the specifics.

There is a mild amount of barrel distortion (+4) at 70mm along with a moderate amount of vignette (+41). Both of these correct easily either in camera for JPEGs and/or Video or via the correction profile in your software for RAW files.

By 200mm the distortion flips to some mild pincushion distortion (-4) and a much heavier amount of vignette (+70). It still corrects fine, though I feel like the standard profile leaves more lingering vignette (at least in Adobe) than what I would like.

I felt like I could do a better job manually if the object was to completely correct for the vignette, though that’s not always preferred. In many situations a bit of natural vignette is actually desirable.

No real issues there. At 70mm I saw only the faintest hint of Lateral Chromatic Aberrations and almost no Longitudinal Chromatic aberrations. You can see in this test that there is basically no purple fringing before the plane of focus and no green afterwards.

There’s slightly more LoCa at 200mm, but not enough to really show up in most real world situations.

So, the basic optical flaws are all fairly well controlled and shouldn’t be an issue. So how about contrast and resolution?

Some of you will enjoy digging through the details to follow, but some would prefer a summary of my findings. What I found is that center and midframe sharpness were consistently quite good with contrast being good but not exceptional. Stopping down to F4 or F5.6 provides a pronounced improvement of contrast and a more mild improvement to actual resolution. In many cases slightly off center (think the rule of thirds zone) was actually more impressive than the center. Corners lag significantly behind center performance, and I only saw exceptional performance in the corner when stopped down to around F8, on average, the aperture value (at least on the R5) that I feel is best suited to landscapes or other scenes where corner to corner sharpness is valued. Performance across the zoom range was fairly consistent; this lens is optimized for sharpness in the mid-frame at wide apertures and only for ultimate corner sharpness at smaller apertures.

Here’s a look at my test chart with 70mm crops from the center, mid-frame, and lower right corner. You can see that the corner performance is considerably behind the center and mid-frame results.

F4 brings improvement to the center and mid-frame, but the corners require stopping down to F8 before they are truly sharp:

Use F8 on the EOS R5 for landscapes, as you’ll get great sharpness and contrast across the frame. Here’s a full image, then a crop from the middle and far left side.

The lens reaches a truly small minimum aperture of F32, but I think this should be avoided because of the effects of diffraction will start to really reduce contrast and sharpness to what I consider unacceptable levels.

The lens followed a fairly similar pattern at 100mm, delivering fantastic center and mid-frame results by F4, but requiring F8 to achieve greatness in the corners.

The lens reaches its zenith at 135mm where I feel like it achieves very high levels of sharpness and contrast earlier in the aperture range, though the corners still need F8 to really shine.

So finally we reach the arguably most important point in the zoom range – 200mm. I’ve seen 70-200mm lenses that “faded” down the stretch and lost some performance at 200mm, but that’s not the case here. The RF 70-200L maintains a similar level of performance at 200mm, with good center performance, excellent mid-frame performance, and corners that still need that same extra to pop.

When you test a lot of lenses, you start to get a sense of what the engineers’ priorities are with a given lens. In this case, this is a lens optimized for performance in the center two-thirds of the frame, though with the sweet spot slightly off center (as professional photographers rarely compose right in the center of the frame). Sharp corners aren’t nearly as high a priority, and so we see them sharpen up at smaller apertures where that is more likely needed. Here’s a lens that is at 100mm F2.8 and where I’ve given it some processing, and you can see from the crop that there is a lot of sharpness there in the plane of focus.

At the same time, however, I’m a little underwhelmed by the absolute performance of the lens relative to its price. Earlier in 2020 I reviewed the new Tamron 70-180mm F2.8 VXD for Sony FE, another compact telephoto that follows a similar kind of blueprint. What I saw when comparing the lenses was the the Tamron was slightly sharper in the center of the frame, the Canon a bit sharper mid-frame, while the Tamron destroys the Canon in corner performance. I’ll include comparisons here at 70mm and 180/200mm.

There are areas where the Canon has a clear advantage (features, build, inclusion of IS, 20mm of extra focal length), but optically it is not superior despite the Tamron costing some $1400 less. That bothers me mostly because the Canon is so expensive. I expressed similar concerns relative to Sony’s 70-200mm F2.8 GM. These lenses are just priced too high.

Some of you might be saying, “Wait! I read/watched another review where the reviewer raved about the sharpness from this lens. Maybe you got a bad copy…” A couple of things: first of all, I’ve happened to review this lens after the release of the Canon EOS R5 and its much higher 45Mpx of resolution, while almost all the early reviews were done on the 30Mpx of the EOS R. Higher resolution reveals certain shortcomings that lower resolution cameras conceal. Secondly, I’m not sure that my findings actually differ from that of other reviewers. I sometimes look at the raw data that reviewers produce as a part of their reviews and parse it a different way. For example, if you look at the chart testing from Bryan Carnathan’s “The Digital Picture” (a fantastic resource), you’ll find that his tests produced similar results relative to the Tamron 70-180mm even when testing the Canon on the EOS R. I think that the RF 70-200L is a very good lens, but I don’t believe that it is an improvement on what we’ve seen before optically…

…except in one area. I find the bokeh rendering from the lens to be particularly good for a zoom lens like this. Some lenses have a unique ability to produce particularly pleasing backgrounds. Call it “rendering” or “drawing”, but some lenses just find that perfect balance of softness and blending of out of focus colors that just make for really pleasing images. The RF 70-200L is just such a lens.

Again I am reminded of the EF 70-300L that really exceeded my expectations in this area. Whether at medium distances where more is in focus:

…or at very close distances, backgrounds just melt away in a really pleasing fashion.

Time and again I was really pleased with the look of the images I got from the RF 70-200L even if I wasn’t blown away by the technical performance on a pixel level. Here’s a few of the images where I thought that the quality of the bokeh really made the image:

The lens also did pretty good in flare resistance, which extends the usefulness.

In short, I actually really enjoyed using the lens for the huge variety of applications that such a lens can service. Here’s a few of those various things that came along:

If you want to see more images, you can check out the image gallery here.

I hope that I’ve been able to bring the appropriate level of nuance to this section. I don’t think it is true that every RF lens will automatically be excellent due to the revolutionary new mount; there will be exceptional RF lenses and there will be mediocre RF lenses. This RF 70-200L is optically good, but I don’t think it is exceptional. I do, however, really like the overall look and feel of the images I’ve gotten with the lens and feel that it is appropriate to the class of lens…but maybe not the price they are asking for it.

Conclusion

I was very excited for the announcement of the Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM, partly because such a lens is incredibly important to a system. This is one of the “bread-and-butter” lenses for working professionals, and, while I don’t mind hitting the wider angles with a prime (I can do a LOT with a 35mm lens!), I don’t want anything but a 70-200mm (or similar lens) on the telephoto end when I’m shooting events. The flexibility of that zoom range cannot be overstated, and even when you are shooting portraits, it gives you so many different options for how to approach either a setting or a model.

I was mostly excited, however, because it was clear that Canon was taking an innovative approach to the lens design. I love the 70-200mm F2.8 concept, but I haven’t always loved the bulky package it comes in. The RF 70-200L traveled with me far more often during my review because of the more compact, flexible form factor, and that means it got used more often. I used it for video, for stills, and for tracking action. I took it to church, and on hikes, and to portrait sessions. There is a real value to be had in that, and I applaud Canon taking a chance and reimagining this lens.

I love the look and feel of images from the lens and loved using it. The stabilization is excellent, the autofocus is exceptional, and the weight and balance of the lens made it easy to use on my Canon EOS R5.

But there are two main disadvantages to this new lens design that will be part of the consideration process for any potential buyer. The first is that teleconverters do not physically fit, meaning that one loses an advantage/convenience that you might have heavily relied on in the past. Secondly is the reality that this lens is just too expensive. At $2700 USD ($3500 CAD here in Canada!), this lens is priced at an extreme. It is $600 USD more than the EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS III, and one has to wonder, “why?” I get a lot of comments from viewers at my YouTube channel who are extremely interested in what Canon is doing in the full frame mirrorless space, but simply cannot afford the prices. The RF 15-35mm F2.8L IS that I just reviewed costs $100 more than its EF counterpart, and that feels more appropriate. Still, at the end of the day, this is what I would call an indispensable lens for a working professional or hard-core amateur, so sometimes you just have to have that little cry, bite the bullet, and lay down the money. Or you could wait for the inevitable F4 version from Canon that will come, or maybe hope for a few third party challenger or two to come in the near future. Choices, choices.

Pros:

Significant size and weight savings over competing lenses
Extremely fast, quiet, and accurate autofocus
Very good tracking and action capabilities when paired with better cameras
Highly effective image stabilization system
Improved maximum magnification
Very easy to use and transport for a 70-200mm F2.8
Gorgeous bokeh and color
Good global contrast and rendering
Good center sharpness and excellent mid-frame performance
Good control of aberrations and flare

Cons:

Extremely expensive
Not compatible with teleconverters
Tripod foot not Arca-Swiss compatible
Not particularly sharp in corners until smaller apertures

Gear Used:

Purchase a Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Purchase a Canon EOS R5 @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Purchase a Canon EOS R6 @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Purchase a Canon RF 15-35mm F2.8L IS @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Peak Design Slide Lite: Peak Design Store | B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK
Peak Design Leash Strap: Peak Design Store | B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK
BenQ SW271 4K Photo Editing Monitor – B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon.ca | Amazon UK
Adobe Photoshop Creative Cloud 1-Year Subscription
Exposure Software X5 (Use Code “dustinabbott” to get 10% anything and everything)
Visit Dustin’s Amazon Storefront and see his favorite gear

Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. You can also make a donation here if you would like. Visit my Amazon page for some of my gear of choice! Thank you for your support.

Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52018DA in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!

Use Code “DUSTINHDR” to get $10 off ($15 CDN) any Skylum product: Luminar, Aurora, or AirMagic

Keywords: Canon RF 70-200, Canon RF 70-200mm, 70-200, 70-200mm, RF, 70-200L, L, IS, USM Canon EOS R5, EOS, R5, EOS R5, EOS R6, mirrorless, full frame, EOS R5 Review, Canon R5 Review, Canon 70-200 Review, Dustin Abbott, Real World, Comparison, Handling, Tracking, Focus, Burst Rate, Tracking, Sports, Portraits, Resolution, High ISO, Image Quality, Sample Images, Photography, Dogs, Ergonomics, 45Mpx, Sony a9, RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS, RF 15-35mm F2.8L IS, Canon

DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS Image Gallery

Dustin Abbott

October 31st, 2020

Canon has promised us that the new RF mount has created the potential for a lot of new lens innovation and development. There’s certainly been evidence of that, and one of the most intriguing applications has been Canon’s surprisingly compact RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM. I was fortunate enough to get to review one while I reviewed the new Canon EOS R5, and it proved an excellent match for that camera. Canon has managed to give us the performance of their typical pro-grade 70-200mm F2.8L IS, but in a package that is nearly 30% lighter and shorter. The tradeoff is that the RF 70-200mm is not internally zooming, so it does extend some when zooming, but I’m loving the tradeoff due to the unique portability I get from the lens. I’ve got an 8L Messenger Bag (I reviewed it here), and, if I skip the lens hood, I’m able to carry it upright in that bag attached to my EOS R5. That leaves room for a second lens in the bag, extending my versatility even while traveling light.

So what’s the bad news? Well, in typical Canon fashion, the price tag is going to make you feel like having a little cry before you pull out your credit card. At $2700 USD, the RF 70-200mm is priced at nearly 30% higher than the most recent EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS III. Apparently 30% less lens is going to cost you 30% more. Also sacrificed at the altar of compactness is the ability to use teleconverters, so this lens is strictly going to be used with its existing zoom range. These negatives aside, however, I’ve found the RF 70-200mm to be a rather indispensable tool, great for tracking action, for portraits, for video work, and for general purpose photography. It’s such a flexible zoom range, and the wide maximum aperture gives one a lot of options.

The photo galleries below will give you a closer look at the lens along with photos taken with it on the Canon EOS R5 camera. Stay tuned for my upcoming reviews!

Thanks to Camera Canada for getting me a loaner of the RF 70-200mm. If you’re in Canada, check them out for a reliable online retailer.

Photos of the Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS

Photos taken with the Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS

Gear Used:

Purchase a Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Purchase a Canon EOS R5 @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Purchase a Canon EOS R6 @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Purchase a Canon RF 15-35mm F2.8L IS @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Peak Design Slide Lite: Peak Design Store | B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK
Peak Design Leash Strap: Peak Design Store | B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK
BenQ SW271 4K Photo Editing Monitor – B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon.ca | Amazon UK
Adobe Photoshop Creative Cloud 1-Year Subscription
Exposure Software X5 (Use Code “dustinabbott” to get 10% anything and everything)
Visit Dustin’s Amazon Storefront and see his favorite gear

Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. You can also make a donation here if you would like. Visit my Amazon page for some of my gear of choice! Thank you for your support.

Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52018DA in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!

Use Code “DUSTINHDR” to get $10 off ($15 CDN) any Skylum product: Luminar, Aurora, or AirMagic

Purchase a Canon EOS R6 @ B&H Photo https://bhpho.to/3dCt9g3 | Amazon https://amzn.to/3o0T4Tm | Camera Canada https://shrsl.com/2k730 | Amazon Canada https://amzn.to/3424pLc | Amazon UK https://amzn.to/2H9e6yj | Amazon Germany https://amzn.to/2T0BkJJ | Ebay http://bit.ly/EOSR6dla

Keywords: Canon RF 70-200, Canon RF 70-200mm, 70-200, 70-200mm, RF, 70-200L, L, IS, USM Canon EOS R5, EOS, R5, EOS R5, EOS R6, mirrorless, full frame, EOS R5 Review, Canon R5 Review, Canon 70-200 Review, Dustin Abbott, Real World, Comparison, Handling, Tracking, Focus, Burst Rate, Tracking, Sports, Portraits, Resolution, High ISO, Image Quality, Sample Images, Photography, Dogs, Ergonomics, 45Mpx, Sony a9, RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS, RF 15-35mm F2.8L IS, Canon

DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Canon EOS R3 Review

Dustin Abbott

December 13th, 2021

Canon EOS R3 Features and Specification

EOS R3 Autofocus

EOS R3 Video Specs and Performance

Canon EOS R3 Sensor Performance

ISO Performance

Dynamic Range

Resolution

Conclusion

Pros:

Cons:

Purchase a Canon EOS R3 @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Purchase a Canon EOS R5 @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Purchase a Canon EOS R6 @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Buy DA Merchandise https://bit.ly/TWIMerch

Purchase the Sony Alpha 1 @ Camera Canada | B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Peak Design Leash Strap: Peak Design Store | B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK

Related Articles at DustinAbbott.net

Canon EOS R3 Image Gallery

Dustin Abbott

December 12th, 2021

Photos of the Canon EOS R3

Photos Taken with the Canon EOS R3

Purchase a Canon EOS R3 @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Purchase a Canon EOS R5 @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Purchase a Canon EOS R6 @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Buy DA Merchandise https://bit.ly/TWIMerch

Purchase the Sony Alpha 1 @ Camera Canada | B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Peak Design Leash Strap: Peak Design Store | B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK

Related Articles at DustinAbbott.net

Canon RF 70-200mm F4L IS USM Review

Dustin Abbott

March 8th, 2021

Canon RF 70-200 F4L Build and Features

Autofocus Performance

Canon RF 70-200 F4L Image Quality

Conclusion

Pros:

Cons:

Purchase a Canon RF 70-200mm F4L IS @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Purchase a Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Purchase a Canon EOS R5 @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Purchase a Canon EOS R6 @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Buy DA Merchandise https://bit.ly/TWIMerch

Use Code “DUSTINHDR” to get $10 off ($15 CDN) any Skylum product: Luminar, Aurora, or AirMagic

Related Articles at DustinAbbott.net

Canon RF 70-200mm F4L IS USM Image Gallery

Dustin Abbott

March 8th, 2021

Images of the Canon RF 70-200mm F4L IS

Images Taken with the Canon RF 70-200mm F4L IS

Purchase a Canon RF 70-200mm F4L IS @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Purchase a Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Purchase a Canon EOS R5 @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Purchase a Canon EOS R6 @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Buy DA Merchandise https://bit.ly/TWIMerch

Use Code “DUSTINHDR” to get $10 off ($15 CDN) any Skylum product: Luminar, Aurora, or AirMagic

Related Articles at DustinAbbott.net

Canon EOS R6 Review

Dustin Abbott

December 9th, 2020

Canon EOS R6 Features and Specification

8 Stops

7 Stops

7.5 Stops

6.5 Stops

6 Stops

Canon EOS R6 Autofocus

EOS R6 Video Specs and Performance

Canon EOS R6 Sensor Performance

ISO Performance

Dynamic Range

Resolution

Conclusion

Pros:

Cons:

Purchase a Canon EOS R6 @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Purchase a Canon EOS R5 @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Purchase a Canon RF 15-35mm F2.8L IS @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay
Purchase a Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Purchase a Canon RF 15-35mm F2.8L IS @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay
Purchase a Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Camera Canada | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay