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 40-150mm F4 PRO
Micro Four Thirds Mount
Lightweight 40–150mm travel telephoto with F4 constant aperture and IP53 sealing.
$699
Launch priceReleased Feb 2020
M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm F4 PRO is 3 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 40-150mm F4 PRO
1 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)
- BM.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm F4 PRO has lower Weight (382 g vs 1070 g)
- BM.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm F4 PRO has lower Length (99.9 mm vs 146 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)
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 40-150mm F4 PRO
⌀69 × 100 mm
382 g (0.84 lb / 13.47 oz)
RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM is 46mm longer and 22mm wider than M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm F4 PRO.
RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM is 688 g heavier than M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm F4 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
- ✓
OIS effectiveness
5 stops vs 0 stops — higher is better
- ✓
Special elements
Adds 1 Super UD, 1 UD
- ✓
Optical stabilization
Only RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM supports it
- ✓
Control ring
Only RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM supports it
- ✓
Max aperture (Wide)
f/2.8 vs f/4 — lower is better
- ✓
Max aperture (Tele)
f/2.8 vs f/4 — lower is better
- ✓
Max magnification
0.23 × vs 0.21 × — higher is better
Reasons to choose the M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm F4 PRO
- ✓
Special elements
Adds 2 ED, 1 Super ED, 1 HR
- ✓
Weight
382 g vs 1070 g — lower is better
- ✓
Internal focus
Only M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm F4 PRO supports it
- ✓
Length
99.9 mm vs 146 mm — lower is better
- ✓
Diameter
68.5 mm vs 90 mm — lower is better
Shared specifications
Min focus distance
Both 70 cm
Weather sealing
Both support weather sealing
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 40-150mm F4 PRO
Pros
- ✓Versatile zoom range covers multiple focal lengths in one lens
- ✓Lightweight design easy to carry all day
- ✓Native Micro Four Thirds mount compatibility
Cons
- –No optical stabilization — relies on body IBIS
- –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 40-150mm F4 PRO at major authorized retailers.
Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM
OM System M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm F4 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 June 2026.