Opinions on the RF 28-70/2 vs RF 24-70/2.8 in terms of IQ?

PGSanta wrote:

highdesertmesa wrote:

With IBIS coming and their IQ being so close – cost, weight, size, and filter expense are the only remaining and substantial differentiators.

Like you said, f/2 is THE reason to choose the 28-70, but it is difficult to underestimate the difference that makes in the image character. The 28-70 @ 70mm/f2 renders like a Zeiss prime, which is quite astonishing for a zoom.

My 28-70 was a tough return, but I did so because I just didn't think it offered a close enough rendering to a good 1.8 prime (let alone a 1.4, or 1.2). I sent it back on the hunch that id' be happier with the IS zooms when I needed a zoom, and primes when I needed speed. I'm happy I went that route, as the 15-35, and 24-70 that Canon has released are fantastic.

I think the only real way you'll know for sure if the f/2 is something that will impress you, is to use the lens. Some folks love it, with good reason. I feel it's an impressive design, but for just about 99% of scenarios where I'd be shooting close to f/2 I'd rather use a fast prime that would almost certainly give me a superior image.

I'm trying to think of a Canon f/1.8 lens prized for it's bokeh rendering. Some like the RF 35 f/1.8 come close I guess, but you'd probably only know the difference if you shot the same scene with both. Slightly off topic, but I've found the RF 28-70 and RF 50 when both shot at f/2 near MFD have identical bokeh character.

When choosing between the 24-70 vs 28-70, I also try to encourage people to consider 15-35 / 50 / 70-200 and forget the standard zoom altogether. Once you have the 15-35 and 70-200, you really only are missing 40-65. The RF 50 f/1.2 is a brilliant lens, perhaps the best in the entire RF lineup so far.