Canon RF 28-70 F/2 L

Patlezinc wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

cpharm86 wrote:

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?

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).

We can say you have the 24-70 2.8 "inside the 28-70 f2 (except the 24-28mm range)

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.

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

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