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
OM System
M.Zuiko Digital ED 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 IS
Micro Four Thirds Mount
M.Zuiko Digital ED 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 IS — 100–400mm f/5-6.3 for Micro Four Thirds, a popular choice in the om-system lineup.
$1,499
Launch priceReleased Sep 2020
M.Zuiko Digital ED 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 IS is 10 months 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
M.Zuiko Digital ED 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 IS
Which would you choose?
TL;DR — Key differences
- ARF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM has lower Max aperture (Tele) (f/2.8 vs f/6.3)
- ARF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM has lower Min focus distance (70 cm vs 130 cm)
- ARF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM has lower Max aperture (Wide) (f/2.8 vs f/5)
- ARF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM has higher OIS effectiveness (5 stops vs 3 stops)
- ARF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM has lower Length (146 mm vs 205.7 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
M.Zuiko Digital ED 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 IS
⌀86 × 206 mm
1120 g (2.47 lb / 39.51 oz)
RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM is 60mm shorter and 4mm wider than M.Zuiko Digital ED 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 IS.
RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM is 50 g lighter than M.Zuiko Digital ED 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 IS.
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
- ✓
Max aperture (Tele)
f/2.8 vs f/6.3 — lower is better
- ✓
Min focus distance
70 cm vs 130 cm — lower is better
- ✓
Max aperture (Wide)
f/2.8 vs f/5 — lower is better
- ✓
OIS effectiveness
5 stops vs 3 stops — higher is better
- ✓
Length
146 mm vs 205.7 mm — lower is better
- ✓
Weight
1070 g vs 1120 g — lower is better
Reasons to choose the M.Zuiko Digital ED 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 IS
- ✓
Special elements
Adds 4 ED, 2 Super HR, 2 HR
- ✓
Internal focus
Only M.Zuiko Digital ED 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 IS supports it
- ✓
Custom function button
Only M.Zuiko Digital ED 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 IS supports it
- ✓
Max magnification
0.29 × vs 0.23 × — higher is better
- ✓
Diameter
86.4 mm vs 90 mm — lower is better
Shared specifications
Optical stabilization
Both support optical stabilization
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
M.Zuiko Digital ED 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 IS
Pros
- ✓Versatile zoom range covers multiple focal lengths in one lens
- ✓Built-in optical image stabilization
- ✓Weather-sealed construction for outdoor shooting
Cons
- –Relatively heavy for extended handheld use
- –Slower maximum aperture limits low-light performance
Decided which one is right for you?
Compare live prices for the RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM and M.Zuiko Digital ED 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 IS at major authorized retailers.
Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM
OM System M.Zuiko Digital ED 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 IS
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.