Reading mode: Light Dark

Canon RF 28-70 F/2 L

Go to last post
RLight said:
cpharm86 said:
Thank you to everyone that gave me input to my question on the RF 28-70 lens.

I looked up my metadata in Lightroom over the past several years and in 2022 using the R5 camera.

Out of 4,500 shots in 2022 with all lenses I own I used f/1.2, 1.4, 1.6, 1.8, 2.2 only 74 times. 1,755 shots were at f/5.6

I spoke to my local camera shop today and he mentioned Canon might have their trade-in program starting tomorrow. I am not familiar with that program.

Based on my aperture uses and owning the Canon RF 50mm f/1.2L and Canon RF 85mm 1.2L I might just go with the Canon RF 24-70mm and either trade-in or sell my current Canon EF 24-70 2.8L ii.

I don’t have an issue paying the extra $700 for the RF 28-70 but think it will be more practical to use the RF 24-70mm. Easier to haul around all day, 24mm vs 28 mm. Not saying that if I had f/2.0 I wouldn’t shoot more below f/2.8 since I don’t need to change lenses but that is hard to say.

Out of the 4,500 shots I used 24mm 192 times and 28mm 76 times. 1,200 shots were between f/5.6 and f/7.1.

Thank for listening for my rationalization. :-)
Click to expand...
Do you shoot P, Auto, Fv, Tv, Av? Very important question.
Click to expand...
Manual, typically set AV/TV and go with AUTO iso.
RLight said:
By what I just heard, either A. You’re best served with stabilized F/4L lenses or B. You’re just not using what’s on tap to you now. A 28-70 as cool as it is, won’t fix anything for you other than put a dent in you wallet.
Click to expand...
At my age I’m not overly concerned with a small dent in my wallet. :-) I’ve worked over 50 years and I guess I’m saving for our 3 daughters retirement. :-D Aside from that, I’m am careful with what I spend. You never know.
RLight said:
Even an f/2.8 is a waste for you.
Click to expand...
I want that option when needed. Based on my shooting habits I have determined I don’t need the 28-70mm. I do want to get the RF 24-70 though since that is the lens I would probably use well over 50% of the time and I agree that carrying the 28-70 most of a day would get tiring. I have a buyer for the EF 24-70.

Thank you for your input.
RLight said:
Seriously give it some thought as to why you shoot, what you shoot. If you can answer, you have answered your own question.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
cpharm86 said:
RLight said:
cpharm86 said:
Thank you to everyone that gave me input to my question on the RF 28-70 lens.

I looked up my metadata in Lightroom over the past several years and in 2022 using the R5 camera.

Out of 4,500 shots in 2022 with all lenses I own I used f/1.2, 1.4, 1.6, 1.8, 2.2 only 74 times. 1,755 shots were at f/5.6

I spoke to my local camera shop today and he mentioned Canon might have their trade-in program starting tomorrow. I am not familiar with that program.

Based on my aperture uses and owning the Canon RF 50mm f/1.2L and Canon RF 85mm 1.2L I might just go with the Canon RF 24-70mm and either trade-in or sell my current Canon EF 24-70 2.8L ii.

I don’t have an issue paying the extra $700 for the RF 28-70 but think it will be more practical to use the RF 24-70mm. Easier to haul around all day, 24mm vs 28 mm. Not saying that if I had f/2.0 I wouldn’t shoot more below f/2.8 since I don’t need to change lenses but that is hard to say.

Out of the 4,500 shots I used 24mm 192 times and 28mm 76 times. 1,200 shots were between f/5.6 and f/7.1.

Thank for listening for my rationalization. :-)
Click to expand...
Do you shoot P, Auto, Fv, Tv, Av? Very important question.
Click to expand...
Manual, typically set AV/TV and go with AUTO iso.
cpharm86 said:
By what I just heard, either A. You’re best served with stabilized F/4L lenses or B. You’re just not using what’s on tap to you now. A 28-70 as cool as it is, won’t fix anything for you other than put a dent in you wallet.
Click to expand...
At my age I’m not overly concerned with a small dent in my wallet. :-) I’ve worked over 50 years and I guess I’m saving for our 3 daughters retirement. :-D Aside from that, I’m am careful with what I spend. You never know.
cpharm86 said:
Even an f/2.8 is a waste for you.
Click to expand...
I want that option when needed. Based on my shooting habits I have determined I don’t need the 28-70mm. I do want to get the RF 24-70 though since that is the lens I would probably use well over 50% of the time and I agree that carrying the 28-70 most of a day would get tiring. I have a buyer for the EF 24-70.

Thank you for your input.
cpharm86 said:
Seriously give it some thought as to why you shoot, what you shoot. If you can answer, you have answered your own question.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I get it, I’m a systems engineer, well funded. Part of being well funded is not being frivolous too though. Be smart with investing, controlled costs, and discretionary which this obviously is.

I used to be a fast prime guy, till I met the 28-70. That said it’s a people popper. If that’s not your intent? You should think about f/2.8, f/4, absolutely.
 
Last edited:
paratom said:
From 50/1.2 to 2870/2.0 there are 1.5 stops of difference.

From 2870 to 2470/2.8 it is one f-stop difference.

For me the 1 stop difference doesn't justify the big size and reduced wide angel of the 2870 vs the 2470.

For my taste the 2870 is too big. In this range I shoot subjects/people where I want to get close and where I do not want to put a monster lens in their face.

Even the 2470/2.8 is a little big for my taste.

I wish Canon offered some high quality compact primes in the 1.4-1.8 range.
Click to expand...
I think the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS stm is okayish. But there's nothing like the FE 50mm f/1.4 GM @516 grams, Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DN @630 grams. Add a 200 grams 28mm f/2.0 and you're good to go. No need for an f/1.2 prime vs f/2.0 zoom discussion.
 
thunder storm said:
paratom said:
From 50/1.2 to 2870/2.0 there are 1.5 stops of difference.

From 2870 to 2470/2.8 it is one f-stop difference.

For me the 1 stop difference doesn't justify the big size and reduced wide angel of the 2870 vs the 2470.

For my taste the 2870 is too big. In this range I shoot subjects/people where I want to get close and where I do not want to put a monster lens in their face.

Even the 2470/2.8 is a little big for my taste.

I wish Canon offered some high quality compact primes in the 1.4-1.8 range.
Click to expand...
I think the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS stm is okayish. But there's nothing like the FE 50mm f/1.4 GM @516 grams, Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DN @630 grams. Add a 200 grams 28mm f/2.0 and you're good to go. No need for an f/1.2 prime vs f/2.0 zoom discussion.
Click to expand...
Good stuff Storm. What is needed is small A7CII
 
paratom said:
From 50/1.2 to 2870/2.0 there are 1.5 stops of difference.

From 2870 to 2470/2.8 it is one f-stop difference.

For me the 1 stop difference doesn't justify the big size and reduced wide angel of the 2870 vs the 2470.
Click to expand...
Unless the big zoom is giving you angel-ic images. ;-)
paratom said:
For my taste the 2870 is too big. In this range I shoot subjects/people where I want to get close and where I do not want to put a monster lens in their face.
Click to expand...
As I mentioned, I use this lens largely for shooting events and sports (where I am the paid photographer), and people expect that they’ll be getting their pictures taken. Maintaining excellent rapport is always important.
paratom said:
Even the 2470/2.8 is a little big for my taste.
Click to expand...
Yes, when I want to stay low key, I love the stealth of a small lens on the M6ii with its discreet tilting LCD. :-)
paratom said:
I wish Canon offered some high quality compact primes in the 1.4-1.8 range.
Click to expand...
Another side of the double-edged sword that is the 28-70 is that it garners a LOT of attention from potential clients at these events. They’re always inquiring. Even other photographers get all goggle-eyed at this thing. I turn down way more work than I can ever possibly do, and yet still get myself into trouble (not enough free time!).

Alas.

R2

--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries
 
Last edited:
R2D2 said:
paratom said:
From 50/1.2 to 2870/2.0 there are 1.5 stops of difference.

From 2870 to 2470/2.8 it is one f-stop difference.

For me the 1 stop difference doesn't justify the big size and reduced wide angel of the 2870 vs the 2470.
Click to expand...
Unless the big zoom is giving you angel-ic images. ;-)
R2D2 said:
For my taste the 2870 is too big. In this range I shoot subjects/people where I want to get close and where I do not want to put a monster lens in their face.
Click to expand...
As I mentioned, I use this lens largely for shooting events and sports (where I am the paid photographer), and people expect that they’ll be getting their pictures taken. Maintaining excellent rapport is always important.
Click to expand...
exactly, the money lens!
R2D2 said:
R2D2 said:
Even the 2470/2.8 is a little big for my taste.
Click to expand...
Yes, when I want to stay low key, I love the stealth of a small lens on the M6ii with its discreet tilting LCD. :-)
Click to expand...
mostly for fun, yep!

and occasionally for money :)
R2D2 said:
R2D2 said:
I wish Canon offered some high quality compact primes in the 1.4-1.8 range.
Click to expand...
Another side of the double-edged sword that is the 28-70 is that it garners a LOT of attention from potential clients at these events. They’re always inquiring. Even other photographers get all goggle-eyed at this thing. I turn down way more work than I can ever possibly do, and yet still get myself into trouble (not enough free time!).
Click to expand...
it has to be a fun gig, or I turn it down ;)

R8 & RP & M6II for me so I can carry all 3 ;)
R2D2 said:
Alas.

R2
Click to expand...
 
MAC said:
thunder storm said:
paratom said:
From 50/1.2 to 2870/2.0 there are 1.5 stops of difference.

From 2870 to 2470/2.8 it is one f-stop difference.

For me the 1 stop difference doesn't justify the big size and reduced wide angel of the 2870 vs the 2470.

For my taste the 2870 is too big. In this range I shoot subjects/people where I want to get close and where I do not want to put a monster lens in their face.

Even the 2470/2.8 is a little big for my taste.

I wish Canon offered some high quality compact primes in the 1.4-1.8 range.
Click to expand...
I think the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS stm is okayish. But there's nothing like the FE 50mm f/1.4 GM @516 grams, Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DN @630 grams. Add a 200 grams 28mm f/2.0 and you're good to go. No need for an f/1.2 prime vs f/2.0 zoom discussion.
Click to expand...
Good stuff Storm. What is needed is small A7CII
Click to expand...
If they add a front dial it gets workable, but the A7IV + 28-60mm is a light enough setup for me. Add the 50GM and 85DN for the holiday portraits and I'm covered for my basic travel setup. If wide angle & low light is a concern I can add the 28mm Art via MC11. That combo AFs a lot better than I expected.

I decided to keep the EF 85mm f/1.4 Art HSM. When at home I really like to switch between R5 + the old 85mm Art and the A7IV 50mm GM without lens changes. At home the weight is no problem at all. So the DN is for travel purposes only.
 
thunder storm said:
I think the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS stm is okayish. But there's nothing like the FE 50mm f/1.4 GM @516 grams, Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DN @630 grams. Add a 200 grams 28mm f/2.0 and you're good to go. No need for an f/1.2 prime vs f/2.0 zoom discussion.
Click to expand...
I own and use the 35/1.8 Rf and agree, its okays but not more.

I thought we are talking about lenses working on a Canon RF body, right? So a Sony lens doesn't help here
 
paratom said:
thunder storm said:
I think the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS stm is okayish. But there's nothing like the FE 50mm f/1.4 GM @516 grams, Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DN @630 grams. Add a 200 grams 28mm f/2.0 and you're good to go. No need for an f/1.2 prime vs f/2.0 zoom discussion.
Click to expand...
I own and use the 35/1.8 Rf and agree, its okays but not more.

I thought we are talking about lenses working on a Canon RF body, right?
Click to expand...
Well, you're pretty selectively quoting here, as I was reacting on a contribution stating the lack of more compact f/1.4 options is a problem for the RF-mount. To evaluate the completeness of a system it never hurts to compare it to another system.
paratom said:
So a Sony lens doesn't help here
Click to expand...
If you buy a Sony body next to your RF body it helps a lot if you want bright yet portable lenses.
 
As a prime shooter I looked at this lens when I had the 24-70.. I ultimately went for the 85mm 1.2 and 50mm 1.2 as those are just absolutely gorgeous and help in lower light scenarios. Then I returned my 24-70 for the 15-35.. so I can use that for ultra wide up to 35 and then 50, 85, and 135 fill the other gaps. The 28-70 was a beautiful lens but what turned me off was the 95mm filter ring, when I use all 82mm filters. If it had 82mm filters, I would’ve conned myself to buy it by now.
 
MAC said:
R2D2 said:
paratom said:
From 50/1.2 to 2870/2.0 there are 1.5 stops of difference.

From 2870 to 2470/2.8 it is one f-stop difference.

For me the 1 stop difference doesn't justify the big size and reduced wide angel of the 2870 vs the 2470.
Click to expand...
Unless the big zoom is giving you angel-ic images. ;-)
MAC said:
For my taste the 2870 is too big. In this range I shoot subjects/people where I want to get close and where I do not want to put a monster lens in their face.
Click to expand...
As I mentioned, I use this lens largely for shooting events and sports (where I am the paid photographer), and people expect that they’ll be getting their pictures taken. Maintaining excellent rapport is always important.
Click to expand...
exactly, the money lens!
Click to expand...
Right-O. And if I were strictly a portrait/wedding shooter I’d for sure have the big 50 and 85 L’s.
MAC said:
MAC said:
MAC said:
Even the 2470/2.8 is a little big for my taste.
Click to expand...
Yes, when I want to stay low key, I love the stealth of a small lens on the M6ii with its discreet tilting LCD.
Click to expand...
mostly for fun, yep!

and occasionally for money
Click to expand...
It’s truly amazing how capable the little M6ii is, even in the company of the R family.
MAC said:
MAC said:
MAC said:
I wish Canon offered some high quality compact primes in the 1.4-1.8 range.
Click to expand...
Another side of the double-edged sword that is the 28-70 is that it garners a LOT of attention from potential clients at these events. They’re always inquiring. Even other photographers get all goggle-eyed at this thing. I turn down way more work than I can ever possibly do, and yet still get myself into trouble (not enough free time!).
Click to expand...
it has to be a fun gig, or I turn it down
Click to expand...
Ah, the life! :-)
MAC said:
R8 & RP & M6II for me so I can carry all 3
Click to expand...
Easy on the wallet, easy on the shoulder, and easy to shoot! You’re in a good place. :-)

Enjoy!

R2
 
  • Like
Reactions: MAC
R2D2 said:
cpharm86 said:
There hasn’t been a lot of discussions on the RF 28-70 lately with all the new stuff from Canon surfacing.

About a year ago I went to my local camera store and tested the RF-28-70. One of the reasons I didn’t buy it was for the size and weight compared to my EF 24-70 2.8L ii. (of course price was a consideration also)

Well, I am back to the RF 28-70 consideration again. I don’t think I want to keep the 24-70 if I purchase the 28-70.

Has anyone that bought the RF 28-70 and had the EF 24-70 2.8L ii keep them both? Any regrets either not keeping them both if you sold the 24-70 and are you happy with the RF 28-70?
Click to expand...
The 28-70 is incomparable.

For its list price of $3100, it's saved me from buying $9,450 worth of fast prime lenses (Canon MSRP).
  • RF 85mm f/1.2 (non-DS, although I'd probably buy the DS, +$300)
  • RF 50mm f/1.2
  • EF 35mm f/1.4 II
  • EF 28mm f/1.4 (Sigma)
  • EF 24mm f/1.4 II
Plus it saves me another $2400 if I were to add in the RF 24-70 f/2.8L (which I'd also need alongside those primes).

Seriously. I had the Joneses HARD for the RF 50mm f/1.2 and RF 85mm f/1.2 (and also had the need for excellent high-speed wide angle lenses too). I was all prepared to buy them, and more!

Then the RF 28-70 hit my radar, and the rest was history. I have no desire to buy any of those primes (or RF 24-70 f/2.8) any longer.

I shoot a lot of events and sports, and this baby just nails it. The zoom range is right on, the AF is fast and sure, the rendition is as heavenly as any other premium L. The DOF isn’t as shallow of course, but that can actually be a detriment for this kind of shooting. If I want max DOF control, I have my Siggy 135mm f/1.8 anyways, and RF 70-200 f/2.8 for longer stuff (plus the sweet RF 15-35 f/2.8 for the U/W range).

IMHO the only real down-side of the 28-70 might be its size. I don’t mind it for event or sports or portrait shooting, but I wouldn’t want to carry it while just walking about, or for travel. YMMV!

R2
Click to expand...
The strong trait of the 28-70 is that it has a very distinct, "character-filled" optical signature, adding to its technical quality.

I simply love it and find myself quite often just picking up the camera, snapping this lens on and going for a "photographic stroll", just because.

This said, I don't think it replaces RF 1.2L primes.

I also have the 85 f/1.2 and never had an instance where the two conflicted in my mind as to which I should use to do what.

It is true one can think of the 28-70 as an apt replacement for multiple primes, given the superb optical quality of this RF zoom gem.

But f/2 primes, not f/1.2 ones.

PK
 
PhotoKhan said:
R2D2 said:
cpharm86 said:
There hasn’t been a lot of discussions on the RF 28-70 lately with all the new stuff from Canon surfacing.

About a year ago I went to my local camera store and tested the RF-28-70. One of the reasons I didn’t buy it was for the size and weight compared to my EF 24-70 2.8L ii. (of course price was a consideration also)

Well, I am back to the RF 28-70 consideration again. I don’t think I want to keep the 24-70 if I purchase the 28-70.

Has anyone that bought the RF 28-70 and had the EF 24-70 2.8L ii keep them both? Any regrets either not keeping them both if you sold the 24-70 and are you happy with the RF 28-70?
Click to expand...
The 28-70 is incomparable.

For its list price of $3100, it's saved me from buying $9,450 worth of fast prime lenses (Canon MSRP).
  • RF 85mm f/1.2 (non-DS, although I'd probably buy the DS, +$300)
  • RF 50mm f/1.2
  • EF 35mm f/1.4 II
  • EF 28mm f/1.4 (Sigma)
  • EF 24mm f/1.4 II
Plus it saves me another $2400 if I were to add in the RF 24-70 f/2.8L (which I'd also need alongside those primes).

Seriously. I had the Joneses HARD for the RF 50mm f/1.2 and RF 85mm f/1.2 (and also had the need for excellent high-speed wide angle lenses too). I was all prepared to buy them, and more!

Then the RF 28-70 hit my radar, and the rest was history. I have no desire to buy any of those primes (or RF 24-70 f/2.8) any longer.

I shoot a lot of events and sports, and this baby just nails it. The zoom range is right on, the AF is fast and sure, the rendition is as heavenly as any other premium L. The DOF isn’t as shallow of course, but that can actually be a detriment for this kind of shooting. If I want max DOF control, I have my Siggy 135mm f/1.8 anyways, and RF 70-200 f/2.8 for longer stuff (plus the sweet RF 15-35 f/2.8 for the U/W range).

IMHO the only real down-side of the 28-70 might be its size. I don’t mind it for event or sports or portrait shooting, but I wouldn’t want to carry it while just walking about, or for travel. YMMV!

R2
Click to expand...
The strong trait of the 28-70 is that it has a very distinct, "character-filled" optical signature, adding to its technical quality.

I simply love it and find myself quite often just picking up the camera, snapping this lens on and going for a "photographic stroll", just because.

This said, I don't think it replaces RF 1.2L primes.

I also have the 85 f/1.2 and never had an instance where the two conflicted in my mind as to which I should use to do what.

It is true one can think of the 28-70 as an apt replacement for multiple primes, given the superb optical quality of this RF zoom gem.

But f/2 primes, not f/1.2 ones.

PK
Click to expand...
It all depends on usage. Yours is simply different than mine. Like I’ve mentioned before, if I still shot a lot of portraits and weddings I’d definitely want the f/1.2 primes in addition to the zoom (they’re truly awesome). But I don’t do much of that any more, and instead I have the outstanding Sigma 135mm f/1.8 to fit that need.

Shooting events though, I find the big zoom to be indispensable, and the fast primes are the ones that are in fact dispensable (IME). Especially since I’m using such an outstanding RAW image processor.

R2
 
R2D2 said:
PhotoKhan said:
R2D2 said:
cpharm86 said:
There hasn’t been a lot of discussions on the RF 28-70 lately with all the new stuff from Canon surfacing.

About a year ago I went to my local camera store and tested the RF-28-70. One of the reasons I didn’t buy it was for the size and weight compared to my EF 24-70 2.8L ii. (of course price was a consideration also)

Well, I am back to the RF 28-70 consideration again. I don’t think I want to keep the 24-70 if I purchase the 28-70.

Has anyone that bought the RF 28-70 and had the EF 24-70 2.8L ii keep them both? Any regrets either not keeping them both if you sold the 24-70 and are you happy with the RF 28-70?
Click to expand...
The 28-70 is incomparable.

For its list price of $3100, it's saved me from buying $9,450 worth of fast prime lenses (Canon MSRP).
  • RF 85mm f/1.2 (non-DS, although I'd probably buy the DS, +$300)
  • RF 50mm f/1.2
  • EF 35mm f/1.4 II
  • EF 28mm f/1.4 (Sigma)
  • EF 24mm f/1.4 II
Plus it saves me another $2400 if I were to add in the RF 24-70 f/2.8L (which I'd also need alongside those primes).

Seriously. I had the Joneses HARD for the RF 50mm f/1.2 and RF 85mm f/1.2 (and also had the need for excellent high-speed wide angle lenses too). I was all prepared to buy them, and more!

Then the RF 28-70 hit my radar, and the rest was history. I have no desire to buy any of those primes (or RF 24-70 f/2.8) any longer.

I shoot a lot of events and sports, and this baby just nails it. The zoom range is right on, the AF is fast and sure, the rendition is as heavenly as any other premium L. The DOF isn’t as shallow of course, but that can actually be a detriment for this kind of shooting. If I want max DOF control, I have my Siggy 135mm f/1.8 anyways, and RF 70-200 f/2.8 for longer stuff (plus the sweet RF 15-35 f/2.8 for the U/W range).

IMHO the only real down-side of the 28-70 might be its size. I don’t mind it for event or sports or portrait shooting, but I wouldn’t want to carry it while just walking about, or for travel. YMMV!

R2
Click to expand...
The strong trait of the 28-70 is that it has a very distinct, "character-filled" optical signature, adding to its technical quality.

I simply love it and find myself quite often just picking up the camera, snapping this lens on and going for a "photographic stroll", just because.

This said, I don't think it replaces RF 1.2L primes.

I also have the 85 f/1.2 and never had an instance where the two conflicted in my mind as to which I should use to do what.

It is true one can think of the 28-70 as an apt replacement for multiple primes, given the superb optical quality of this RF zoom gem.

But f/2 primes, not f/1.2 ones.

PK
Click to expand...
It all depends on usage. Yours is simply different than mine. Like I’ve mentioned before, if I still shot a lot of portraits and weddings I’d definitely want the f/1.2 primes in addition to the zoom (they’re truly awesome). But I don’t do much of that any more, and instead I have the outstanding Sigma 135mm f/1.8 to fit that need.

Shooting events though, I find the big zoom to be indispensable, and the fast primes are the ones that are in fact dispensable (IME). Especially since I’m using such an outstanding RAW image processor.

R2
Click to expand...
yep, pj pop, pop, pop with the great zoom never missing a moment with great framing on the fly - clients don't notice the difference between f2 and f1,2 - and a stop difference isn't a big deal with dxo

what they might notice is missing shots changing to prime lenses or poor framing with primes because subjects are on the move - and I hate one eye in focus and one eye out of focus of too shallow dof
 
thunder storm said:
paratom said:
thunder storm said:
I think the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS stm is okayish. But there's nothing like the FE 50mm f/1.4 GM @516 grams, Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DN @630 grams. Add a 200 grams 28mm f/2.0 and you're good to go. No need for an f/1.2 prime vs f/2.0 zoom discussion.
Click to expand...
I own and use the 35/1.8 Rf and agree, its okays but not more.

I thought we are talking about lenses working on a Canon RF body, right?
Click to expand...
Well, you're pretty selectively quoting here, as I was reacting on a contribution stating the lack of more compact f/1.4 options is a problem for the RF-mount. To evaluate the completeness of a system it never hurts to compare it to another system.
thunder storm said:
So a Sony lens doesn't help here
Click to expand...
If you buy a Sony body next to your RF body it helps a lot if you want bright yet portable lenses.
Click to expand...
that's an option. But I don't like Sony user interface and I already own too much gear.

For compact and fast lenses I use Leica, but I still hope some "in between"high quality f1.4-1.8 lenses from Canon RF.
 
paratom said:
For compact and fast lenses I use Leica, but I still hope some "in between"high quality f1.4-1.8 lenses from Canon RF.
Click to expand...
A max 800g RF 85mm f/1.4 ÜUSM around 2000 euro for me please.
 
R2D2 said:
cpharm86 said:
There hasn’t been a lot of discussions on the RF 28-70 lately with all the new stuff from Canon surfacing.

About a year ago I went to my local camera store and tested the RF-28-70. One of the reasons I didn’t buy it was for the size and weight compared to my EF 24-70 2.8L ii. (of course price was a consideration also)

Well, I am back to the RF 28-70 consideration again. I don’t think I want to keep the 24-70 if I purchase the 28-70.

Has anyone that bought the RF 28-70 and had the EF 24-70 2.8L ii keep them both? Any regrets either not keeping them both if you sold the 24-70 and are you happy with the RF 28-70?
Click to expand...
The 28-70 is incomparable.

For its list price of $3100, it's saved me from buying $9,450 worth of fast prime lenses (Canon MSRP).
  • RF 85mm f/1.2 (non-DS, although I'd probably buy the DS, +$300)
  • RF 50mm f/1.2
  • EF 35mm f/1.4 II
  • EF 28mm f/1.4 (Sigma)
  • EF 24mm f/1.4 II
Plus it saves me another $2400 if I were to add in the RF 24-70 f/2.8L (which I'd also need alongside those primes).
Click to expand...
We can say you have the 24-70 2.8 "inside the 28-70 f2 (except the 24-28mm range), but the 28-70 is NOT equal to all these lenses. We can't say this at all. But the 28-70 is more versatile of course
 
Patlezinc said:
R2D2 said:
cpharm86 said:
There hasn’t been a lot of discussions on the RF 28-70 lately with all the new stuff from Canon surfacing.

About a year ago I went to my local camera store and tested the RF-28-70. One of the reasons I didn’t buy it was for the size and weight compared to my EF 24-70 2.8L ii. (of course price was a consideration also)

Well, I am back to the RF 28-70 consideration again. I don’t think I want to keep the 24-70 if I purchase the 28-70.

Has anyone that bought the RF 28-70 and had the EF 24-70 2.8L ii keep them both? Any regrets either not keeping them both if you sold the 24-70 and are you happy with the RF 28-70?
Click to expand...
The 28-70 is incomparable.

For its list price of $3100, it's saved me from buying $9,450 worth of fast prime lenses (Canon MSRP).
  • RF 85mm f/1.2 (non-DS, although I'd probably buy the DS, +$300)
  • RF 50mm f/1.2
  • EF 35mm f/1.4 II
  • EF 28mm f/1.4 (Sigma)
  • EF 24mm f/1.4 II
Plus it saves me another $2400 if I were to add in the RF 24-70 f/2.8L (which I'd also need alongside those primes).
Click to expand...
We can say you have the 24-70 2.8 "inside the 28-70 f2 (except the 24-28mm range)
Click to expand...
I don’t really look at lenses from their specced focal length in mm. Instead I choose lenses based on their capabilities. There’s a subtle difference there. Too often I see (beginners especially) just trying to fill the focal length range without regard for exactly what and how they’ll be shooting, and what their output requirements are. This can be a costly mistake in more ways than one.
Patlezinc said:
but the 28-70 is NOT equal to all these lenses. We can't say this at all. But the 28-70 is more versatile of course
Click to expand...
Agree, not equal, but its versatility has indeed saved ME from buying ANY of those lenses. Seriously.

YMMV (which I suspect to be the case). But that’s alright of course. ;-)

R2

--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top