Canon RF 28-70 at 50mm vs RF 50 f/1.2L at f/2?

thunder storm wrote:

MAC wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

MAC wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

M J Valentine wrote:

highdesertmesa wrote:

M J Valentine wrote:

Hi,

Based on real-world use, can the RF 28-70mm f/2L match the RF 50mm f/1.2L in terms of sharpness, contrast, etc, at f/2? A high-quality zoom that can replace primes seems attractive. The RF 24-70mm f/2.8L looks to be a good option, albeit that it's slower and possibly rougher in the corners.

I tend to shoot at f/2 or narrower with my R5, but the f/1.2 performance of my RF 50mm may be missed.

Thanks

Nothing performs as well as the RF 50 f/1.2 at f/2 except the RF 85 f/1.2. The RF 28-70 at 50mm and f/2 is probably 90% of the sharpness and 100% of the color from the RF 50 f/1.2.

Also don't underestimate the weight and size of the 28-70. For the most part, it can replace primes in 28/35/50/70, however, it will feel like you have all four of those lenses on your camera or in your bag at the same time, so the only gain is the convenience of not having to change lenses and/or reacting to conditions with the zoom. If you shoot events, the 28-70 is quite valuable, for landscape maybe not as much when the RF 24-105 at f/5.6 or f/8 will be the same or better.

Thanks for the reply. The weight is a factor as it's unlikely I'll want to carry it around all day on holiday. I have 35mm f/1.4II, RF 50mm f/1.2L, RF 24-70 f/2.8 and RF 70-200 f/2.8L so the plan would be to sell the 24-70 and 50mm to get the 28-70. I love the 35mm f/1.4L II which I'd only replace with an RF L version. I'll rent the 28-70 to see if the weight is tolerable.

I have thought about the f/2.0 L zoom, but the biggest problem for me isn't the price itself alone, but also the fact you need to pay extra for another zoom for walk around purposes. Selling the 24-70 is a bad plan in my opinion, unless you'll get a 24-105mm L in return.

I've bought the 40mm Art recently next to my 50mm Art. I don't find myself needing large apertures at wider focal lengths than 40mm. With 40mm & f/1.4 I can do a lot, so I'm not interested in the f/2.0 L zoom anymore. 40mm is the widest for portraits. Wider becomes scapes territory.

some good thoughts

If I were you, I'd sell my Ef 24-70 F2.8 II and get the RF 24-105L

Not possible at the moment, no good deals due to supply problems.

understood

And there's the 70mm@f/2.8 benefit. That might be getting even more important when giving up on the 85mm focal length.

you have enough cropping power on the R5 that the RF 50 F1.2 would be a great 50 and a great 85.  I think R2 said he might sell his 85 -- I'm wondering if this is where he is going also

I'd invest in OCF lighting -- 430 RT to trigger + Canon EL-1 strobist off camera ight on stand

I will stick to bouncing with gary fong.

waste of energy and causes longer recycle times

Lots of 2600 mAh batteries here. Shorter recycle times are nice, but even when bouncing the amounts of power needed aren't so often so huge causing too long recycle times.

if you are happy, great!  Omni-directional bouncing is not my thing -- directional bouncing to the side wall or back wall is my thing -- you don't need a diffuser for that.

Maybe a Covid free Christmas with some family in the house would need a larger DOF during the darker days, but the last 18 months I didn't find myself needing a larger DOF and shorter recycle times...... A large aperture + high ISO performance are good enough to keep recycle times workable.

true -- and the RF 50 F1.2 L has that large wide open Sharp setting!

mag mod system much better

Probably, but not important enough right now. My money tree needs some rest.

I think the RF 50 L is in your future

Mag mod globe and gels and grids

DXO Photolab 4 Elite for NR and processing

You have the primes for stunning shallow DOF photography