Canon
RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM
Canon RF Mount
An incredibly compact, extending telephoto zoom with L-series optics and 5 stops of stabilization.
$2,799
Launch priceReleased Oct 2019
Fujifilm
XF 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR II
Fujifilm X Mount
Second-gen flagship standard zoom — 410g, 72mm filter, de-clickable aperture, and 40MP-class resolution.
$1,199
Launch priceReleased Jan 2025
XF 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR II is 5.3 years newer.
Affiliate disclosure: As an Amazon Associate, Cameraegg earns from qualifying purchases. Cameraegg may also earn commission from B&H links, at no extra cost to you.
Wins
RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM
Wins
XF 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR II
2 categories tied
Which would you choose?
TL;DR — Key differences
- ARF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM has higher OIS effectiveness (5 stops vs 0 stops)
- BXF 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR II has lower Weight (410 g vs 1070 g)
- BXF 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR II has lower Min focus distance (30 cm vs 70 cm)
- BXF 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR II has lower Length (122 mm vs 146 mm)
- BXF 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR II has lower Diameter (78.3 mm vs 90 mm)
Key specs at a glance
Size and weight, to scale
📸 Snap this lens size diff to shareRF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM
⌀90 × 146 mm
1070 g (2.36 lb / 37.74 oz)
Credit card
85.6 × 54 mm
for scale
XF 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR II
⌀78 × 122 mm
410 g (0.90 lb / 14.46 oz)
RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM is 24mm longer and 12mm wider than XF 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR II.
RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM is 660 g heavier than XF 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR II.
Diameter (⌀) is the maximum barrel width; length is measured from the mount to the front of the lens.
Use-case scoring
Which one for what?
Algorithmic scores from verified specs · 10 = best in class
Why pick one over the other
Reasons to choose the RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM
- ✓
Special elements
Adds 1 Super UD, 1 UD, 2 Aspherical
- ✓
OIS effectiveness
5 stops vs 0 stops — higher is better
- ✓
Optical stabilization
Only RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM supports it
- ✓
Max magnification
0.23 × vs 0.21 × — higher is better
Reasons to choose the XF 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR II
- ✓
Special elements
Adds 4 Aspherical, 3 ED, 1 Super ED
- ✓
Weight
410 g vs 1070 g — lower is better
- ✓
Min focus distance
30 cm vs 70 cm — lower is better
- ✓
Internal focus
Only XF 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR II supports it
- ✓
Length
122 mm vs 146 mm — lower is better
- ✓
Diameter
78.3 mm vs 90 mm — lower is better
Shared specifications
Max aperture (Wide)
Both f/2.8
Max aperture (Tele)
Both f/2.8
Weather sealing
Both support weather sealing
Control ring
Both support control ring
Pros & cons at a glance
Editorially curated highlights and trade-offs.
RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM
Pros
- ✓Unbelievably compact storage size thanks to extending barrel
- ✓Very lightweight design (only 1070g)
- ✓Excellent center sharpness at all focal lengths
- ✓Dual Nano USM focus motors offer fast, silent AF
- ✓Exceptional 5-stop optical image stabilization
Cons
- –Extending barrel can draw in dust/moisture over time
- –Not compatible with RF teleconverters (due to rear element position)
- –Vignetting is quite heavy wide open
XF 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR II
Pros
- ✓37% lighter than Mk I (410g vs 655g)
- ✓De-clickable aperture ring for video
- ✓0.3m close focus across zoom range
Cons
- –No optical IS — relies on body IBIS
- –Premium price for APS-C
Decided which one is right for you?
Compare live prices for the RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM and XF 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR II at major authorized retailers.
Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM
Fujifilm XF 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR II
Affiliate disclosure: As an Amazon Associate, Cameraegg earns from qualifying purchases. Cameraegg may also earn commission from B&H links, at no extra cost to you.
Full specifications
✓ = category winner
Specs sourced from manufacturer data. Use-case scores algorithmically derived. Last reviewed June 2026.