anyone using the 28-70 f2 as a regular lens ?

Started Sep 23, 2019 | Discussions thread
sobrien
sobrien Senior Member • Posts: 1,544
Re: anyone using the 28-70 f2 as a regular lens ?

richardperson wrote:

lawny13 wrote:

I wish it is, but I honestly have to say that 80% of the time I leave home with the R and the 50 stm rather than the 24-105 because it is smaller, lighter, and easier. I also know though that if the 24-105 was a 24-70 f2.8, I would more likely to have the latter with me. So I am curious of the 28-70 f2, and other’s opinion cause I am a sucker for prime quality

On my DSLR, for family and dinners, etc. I would have carried the 24-70 f/2.8. The R version of that lens is only a bit less than the 28-70 f/2. If I was responding $2-3k on an R lens, I would choose the 28-70 again, as I don't mind the weight, don't use IS on less than 70mm and prefer the extra stop I get with f/2.

If I wanted to save money and weight, I would more likely get the RF 24-105mm f/4.

I find this an interesting discussion. The price difference between the RF 28-70 and RF 24-70 would be about €250 for me, so the RF28-70 feels like better value.

I think the weight would be ok, I could probably get used to that. My wife would not appreciate it on those occasions that I ask her to take a picture of me, though. I also wonder about the sheer presence of the RF 28-70. It is so bloody conspicuous. I am not sure my friends and family would appreciate me pointing it at them. Maybe they would get used to it after a while. I definitely would not relish all the attention it would attract in a social setting or in public, though, and I wonder would I let that put me off bringing it out. Before selling it, I used a EF 24-70 mark ii for a couple of years as my regular zoom, and got accustomed to that, so I wonder would the same thing happen with this big boy.

The images I have seen from the RF 28-70 are really top notch. Both sharpness and bokeh seem excellent. Looking at Patrick Seguin's comparison with the EF 2.8 mark ii, the RF is clearly sharper at f/2 than the EF is at f/2.8 and - even when both are at f/2.8 - the bokeh looks better on the RF. Importantly, also, it seems to have pleasing colours and contrast. I honestly don't think I would need to consider spending more money on fast primes, like a RF 50 or RF 85, if I had this. I don't think so. In terms of what it delivers, at least, it seems like the ideal companion for a family event or trip about town and most casual portrait scenarios. Would combine well with a EF 16-35 F/4 or RF 24-105 and a EF 70-200 F/4 as a travel set up.

I can't help but think that the RF 24-70 would be the more sensible choice, though, and if there was a bigger price differential it would be a much easier decision.

And then I think, hey the RF 24-105 does a really great job for most things, so combining it with a RF 50 would be the way to go, and it would be another €250 less expensive than the RF 24-70.

Hmmm.

-- hide signature --

"The simple things are also the most extraordinary things and only the wise can see them."
https://www.flickr.com/photos/135843555@N03/

 sobrien's gear list:sobrien's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM Canon EF 135mm F2L USM Canon Extender EF 2x III +16 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow