RF 28-70 F2 or RF 24-70 F2.8 IS?

Hi all,

I have been thinking about the practicality of the newly announced Canon 28-70 F2 L lens. Whilst it’s impressive, I’d have much preferred a 24-70mm F2.8 L IS Lens. This would be:

• Significantly cheaper
• Significantly lighter
• Significantly smaller
• Offer a wider range (24mm)
• Offer IS on a non-IBIS equipped camera

I understand Canon wanted an interesting lens to get some attention but it seems like a very impractical decision. The extra light gathering performance doesn’t offer much in the world of today’s high ISO performance and the subject separation will be minimal.

So the question is: What would you prefer Canon released?

The 28-70 F2 is a show off lens of something not before seen. A show piece for the launch a new system. They talk the talk with the R mount hype and brought out something to walk the walk. See what we can do.

Canon has a couple of patents out there for 24-70 2.8 IS designs. Word has it that they mentioned upcoming 2.8 zooms at their launch. Canon is normally tight lipped. We shall see.

What I would like to see.

An RF 16-35 F/4. I am sure they will do an F4 ultra wide zoom, but I think Canon is going to be more interested in initially rolling out the more showy stuff at first. A 2.8 UWA seems likely sooner than later.

An 85 1.8 could complement the "value" RF 3.5 1.8 in the lineup.

Thoughts R Us wrote:

The Fat Fish wrote:

Hi all,

I have been thinking about the practicality of the newly announced Canon 28-70 F2 L lens. Whilst it’s impressive, I’d have much preferred a 24-70mm F2.8 L IS Lens. This would be:

• Significantly cheaper

Not that much cheaper.

well, the ef 24-70 f2.8 is nearly half the price. I assume an rf f2.8 would likely be around $2200 or so. $800 is a lot to me

• Significantly lighter

Not that much lighter. And the 28-70 is not that heavy.

the 28-70 weighs 60 grams less than a 70-200 f2.8 lens. That’s pretty Darn heavy. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a cool lens, but it is heavy

• Significantly smaller

Not that much smaller. And the 28-70 is not that large. Some people act as if it's like carrying a super tele lens.

• Offer a wider range (24mm)

Yes, that is nice.

• Offer IS on a non-IBIS equipped camera

Doesn't bother me. For me IS is more important on longer lenses. I've used the 24-70 without IS and it's never been a problem.

I understand Canon wanted an interesting lens to get some attention but it seems like a very impractical decision. The extra light gathering performance doesn’t offer much in the world of today’s high ISO performance and the subject separation will be minimal.

There is still no substitute for bringing more light to the image sensor. All other factors being equal, it is always better to have more light from a faster lens with lower ISO than to have less light using higher iSO.

yep, true

And this is a full stop advantage over an f2.8 lens. Whenever a new camera generation with new image sensor comes out, we worry about a 1/3 stop improvement. It can take several years for a sensor to improve ISO performance by 1 stop. At this point we seem to have hit some diminishing returns as well, where iSO performance is only slowly improving.

As to subject isolation, I guarantee you that an f2 lens will give you something special that an f2.8 lens will not. Again, we are talking about a full stop of light.

for sure, this lens will definitely have a cool “look” to it

So it is not in any way a "minimal" difference.

So the question is: What would you prefer Canon released?

Interesting question.

I personally prefer the 28-70 f2. It's a unique one of a kind lens that will give you a look you can't get in any other standard zoom.

Ultimately, it comes down to everyone's individual choice and different people will choose differently and there's nothing wrong with that.

True. I would be tempted by the f2 but probably go with a 24-70 f2.8 but I can understand both choices

28-70/2 is of no interest until they have RF body with IBIS. Wouldn’t spend that kind of money without IS.

As the owner of an RF 28-70 and an EF 24-70 f/2.8, here would be my take. Wait for the RF 24-70 f/2.8 unless:

1) you shoot at the long end of the lens primarily AND isolation from the background is important, like in portraits. As you go wider the difference is minimized; OR

2) you shoot in low light situations where you are right on the ISO/noise limit and the extra stop would be critical for noise reduction.

Of course if you like shooting at slower objects at long shutter speeds then you would certainly want the IS.

For me it’s super easy assuming you’ll save about $700 on the 2.8 IS.

The problems with the 28-70 I got to take around for a day were 1) I really do miss 24mm, and 2) for situations where I really want that narrow DOF, the 50 1.2 crushed the f/2 (primes will still give you a significantly better look).

I liked the lens, but really it only makes sense as a tool that saves you from swapping out primes.

I really didn’t like it as a portrait lens, but that has more to do with the focal range (I prefer 85mm minimum for portraits, ideally a 70-200).

So, I’ll get the 2.8, unless the 2.8 ends up being 2700 or something.

I'm on the first day of a 7 day rental of the 28-70 f2...  it's amazing, but HUGE compared to what I thought it would be...  I thought I'd want one eventually, but the size and weight has me doubting that now. My ef24-70 f2.8ii is my most used workhorse, so I'll certainly own the new rf as soon as the new high mp R comes on line and replaces my 5dsr.

richardperson wrote:

As the owner of an RF 28-70 and an EF 24-70 f/2.8, here would be my take. Wait for the RF 24-70 f/2.8 unless:

1) you shoot at the long end of the lens primarily AND isolation from the background is important, like in portraits. As you go wider the difference is minimized; OR

2) you shoot in low light situations where you are right on the ISO/noise limit and the extra stop would be critical for noise reduction.

Of course if you like shooting at slower objects at long shutter speeds then you would certainly want the IS.

That has been my observation too.

28-70 F2 subject isolation isn't that great at 70 F2 let alone anything else less than that. I rather have a general all purpose lens 24-70 F2.8 with IS and save that money toward a true portrait lens with a wider aperture.

Just bumping this thread because of the upcoming announcement of this lens and other new RF lenses.

I am waiting for two things from Canon: this RF 24-70 f2.8L and an advanced R body (and the performance data and reviews for both). Good to see one of these is coming out soon. If this lens is reviewed to be superior to the EF24-70 f2.8L ii, then I will wait to see the advanced body, and if that is reviewed well, then I will get both.

But if there is no improvement over the EF 24-70 f2.8L ii, then I will look for a Canon fire sale for retailers to reduce stock on EF lenses, and pick one up (and maybe one or two more EF lenses) because it will work fine with my 5D4 and can be adapted to my current A7R3 and any future Sony bodies (should the advanced R be a disappointment).

And the wait continues.

The Fat Fish wrote:

Hi all,

I have been thinking about the practicality of the newly announced Canon 28-70 F2 L lens. Whilst it’s impressive, I’d have much preferred a 24-70mm F2.8 L IS Lens. This would be:

• Significantly cheaper
• Significantly lighter
• Significantly smaller
• Offer a wider range (24mm)
• Offer IS on a non-IBIS equipped camera

I understand Canon wanted an interesting lens to get some attention but it seems like a very impractical decision. The extra light gathering performance doesn’t offer much in the world of today’s high ISO performance and the subject separation will be minimal.

So the question is: What would you prefer Canon released?

It appears that it is the similar reason you have 16-35 4L IS rather than 16-35 2.8L III.

Gareth-raw wrote:

This is the 28-70 F2.0 at 50mm. I would say that's pretty dramatic separation without being zoomed all the way into 70mm

Great picture!

And I agree, the f/2 will give you tons of isolation at portrait distances from 35mm up.

The Fat Fish wrote:

Hi all,

I have been thinking about the practicality of the newly announced Canon 28-70 F2 L lens. Whilst it’s impressive, I’d have much preferred a 24-70mm F2.8 L IS Lens. This would be:

• Significantly cheaper
• Significantly lighter
• Significantly smaller
• Offer a wider range (24mm)
• Offer IS on a non-IBIS equipped camera

Love your unbiased question...

Gareth-raw wrote:

This is the 28-70 F2.0 at 50mm. I would say that's pretty dramatic separation without being zoomed all the way into 70mm

Oh man, just when I think this lens would be overkill I see an image like this one! Stunning shot. Colours and tones in particular are gorgeous so I’m guessing you might have done some good PP work on that.

Have you got any more than you can share with us?

Thanks