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 300mm F4 IS PRO
Micro Four Thirds Mount
600mm-equiv. F4 super-telephoto with Sync IS (6 stops), 1475g weight, removable rotating tripod collar, and PRO weather sealing.
$3,499
Launch priceReleased Feb 2016
RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM is 3.8 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
M.Zuiko Digital ED 300mm F4 IS PRO
Which would you choose?
TL;DR — Key differences
- ARF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM has lower Min focus distance (70 cm vs 140 cm)
- ARF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM has lower Length (146 mm vs 227 mm)
- ARF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM has lower Max aperture (Wide) (f/2.8 vs f/4)
- ARF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM has lower Max aperture (Tele) (f/2.8 vs f/4)
- ARF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM has lower Weight (1070 g vs 1475 g)
Key specs at a glance
Size and weight, to scale
📸 Snap this lens size diff to share
RF 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 300mm F4 IS PRO
⌀93 × 227 mm
1475 g (3.25 lb / 52.03 oz)
RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM is 81mm shorter and 3mm narrower than M.Zuiko Digital ED 300mm F4 IS PRO.
RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM is 405 g lighter than M.Zuiko Digital ED 300mm F4 IS PRO.
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
- ✓
Min focus distance
70 cm vs 140 cm — lower is better
- ✓
Length
146 mm vs 227 mm — lower is better
- ✓
Max aperture (Wide)
f/2.8 vs f/4 — lower is better
- ✓
Max aperture (Tele)
f/2.8 vs f/4 — lower is better
- ✓
Weight
1070 g vs 1475 g — lower is better
- ✓
OIS effectiveness
5 stops vs 4 stops — higher is better
- ✓
Diameter
89.9 mm vs 92.5 mm — lower is better
Reasons to choose the M.Zuiko Digital ED 300mm F4 IS PRO
- ✓
Special elements
Adds 3 Super ED, 3 HR, 1 E-HR
- ✓
Internal focus
Only M.Zuiko Digital ED 300mm F4 IS PRO supports it
- ✓
Custom function button
Only M.Zuiko Digital ED 300mm F4 IS PRO supports it
- ✓
Max magnification
0.24 × vs 0.23 × — higher 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 300mm F4 IS PRO
Pros
- ✓Prime design typically delivers strong sharpness and lighter weight
- ✓Built-in optical image stabilization
- ✓Weather-sealed construction for outdoor shooting
Cons
- –Premium price point
- –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 300mm F4 IS PRO at major authorized retailers.
Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM
OM System M.Zuiko Digital ED 300mm F4 IS PRO
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 August 2026.