Ever had gas?

[Basil]

I'm in the process of selling my 5D Mark IV (think I have it sold), which I didn't;t think I would sell, and now thinking about getting an RF mount 70-200. The question is whether to get the f/2.8 version, or the much lighter and cheaper f/4 version. IQ is great on both. The 2.8 will yield better subject background separation and be better in low light, whereas the f/4 is nearly a pound lighter, thus better for hiking, etc. (and most of what I shoot is landscapes, so the extra 2.8 would not be that useful that often.) The 2.8 is considerably more $$ than the f/4 version (for obvious reasons). My head says get the f/4 version and put the saved $$ towards something else. But this is me right now thinking about the 2.8 version:

 

[DrEntropy]

You likely know which side of the decision I'm on.

We could start callin' ya "Bokeh Basil"...

 

[DrEntropy]

After playing with the 80-400mm D-series optic on the APS-C body and seeing the shortcomings, I may have spoken too soon about not going with a full-frame camera. Already looking at D800~D850 body-only ads...

But won't go mirrorless... uh-huh.

 

[GregW]

Personally I'd say screw the zoom. Get the RF 135 f1.8. Your not walking very far to get the same framing.

 

[Basil]

Personally I'd say screw the zoom. Get the RF 135 f1.8. Your not walking very far to get the same framing.

Already have the 135 f2 (and love it).