F/2L 28-70 expensive, but you get what you pay for

[maiaibing]

Time is preventing me from making a real review with proper samples. But here goes something:

Excellent lens. I am a heavy prime shooter and have not used a standard 2x-70 mm zoom for more than 20 years. But its winning me over as a go-to lens when I'm just bringing a camera along should something show up.

Flare is a little more obvious than I'd expect at this price level. And there is of course vignetting and distortion too. Color spectrum seems very neutral to me.

Still you can confidently shot it @f/2 most of the time (which really is the only reason to get this lens). As for lacking IS I expect Canon will "fix" this by offering IBIS on their next R-series body.

If you are not used to large and heavy lenses I suggest you try it out first. To me its size has not been a problem at all. However, I would really like it to have an attachable foot mount for carrying on a strap.

Love the R ring on the lens even if its sitting a little awkward at the end of the glass. I set it to control exposure compensation. But there are many other options you can set on your camera body.

I personally dislike that it extends (the lens length changes as you zoom in/out). but not everyone else will care.

Build quality is as good as any of other L-glass out there.

I do not do much video and cannot comment on the noise levels while zooming, but the lack of IS already makes it less interesting for the video crowd.

Final thoughts: some standard zoom users will be unhappy that it "only" goes to 28mm at the wide end. And yes - it does make a difference from being able to go to 24mm. If you want to use this lens as your only wide angle lens its worth considering this limitation. If not you gain more than you lose by having an amazing f/2 zoom lens in your hands allowing for very low light photography at a very high quality. So five stars from me.

 

[maiaibing]

Interesting. I click on the "write a review" for this lens link and it auto-posts it to the R-camera forum instead of the Canon lens forum. Not an obvious choice to me.

 

[fastnsharp]

Time is preventing me from making a real review with proper samples. But here goes something:

Excellent lens. I am a heavy prime shooter and have not used a standard 2x-70 mm zoom for more than 20 years. But its winning me over as a go-to lens when I'm just bringing a camera along should something show up.

Flare is a little more obvious than I'd expect at this price level. And there is of course vignetting and distortion too. Color spectrum seems very neutral to me.

Still you can confidently shot it @f/2 most of the time (which really is the only reason to get this lens). As for lacking IS I expect Canon will "fix" this by offering IBIS on their next R-series body.

If you are not used to large and heavy lenses I suggest you try it out first. To me its size has not been a problem at all. However, I would really like it to have an attachable foot mount for carrying on a strap.

Love the R ring on the lens even if its sitting a little awkward at the end of the glass. I set it to control exposure compensation. But there are many other options you can set on your camera body.

I personally dislike that it extends (the lens length changes as you zoom in/out). but not everyone else will care.

Build quality is as good as any of other L-glass out there.

I do not do much video and cannot comment on the noise levels while zooming, but the lack of IS already makes it less interesting for the video crowd.

Final thoughts: some standard zoom users will be unhappy that it "only" goes to 28mm at the wide end. And yes - it does make a difference from being able to go to 24mm. If you want to use this lens as your only wide angle lens its worth considering this limitation. If not you gain more than you lose by having an amazing f/2 zoom lens in your hands allowing for very low light photography at a very high quality. So five stars from me.

You have to take the flare in consideration with the fact that it is an f/2 zoom. It has a lot of glass. It's actually pretty good when you take that into account. Compare to say the 35L f/1.4 II, even stopped down to f/1.8 the 35L has worse veiling flare than the 28-70 f/2. So, I would say the 28-70 is pretty darn good. But it is more than a thousand dollars more expensive than the 35L... so maybe you have a point. But in absolute terms it's actually really good.

I use it wide open all the time and I have no complaints!

 

[J A C S]

Time is preventing me from making a real review with proper samples. But here goes something:

Excellent lens. I am a heavy prime shooter and have not used a standard 2x-70 mm zoom for more than 20 years. But its winning me over as a go-to lens when I'm just bringing a camera along should something show up.

Flare is a little more obvious than I'd expect at this price level. And there is of course vignetting and distortion too. Color spectrum seems very neutral to me.

Still you can confidently shot it @f/2 most of the time (which really is the only reason to get this lens). As for lacking IS I expect Canon will "fix" this by offering IBIS on their next R-series body.

If you are not used to large and heavy lenses I suggest you try it out first. To me its size has not been a problem at all. However, I would really like it to have an attachable foot mount for carrying on a strap.

Love the R ring on the lens even if its sitting a little awkward at the end of the glass. I set it to control exposure compensation. But there are many other options you can set on your camera body.

I personally dislike that it extends (the lens length changes as you zoom in/out). but not everyone else will care.

Build quality is as good as any of other L-glass out there.

I do not do much video and cannot comment on the noise levels while zooming, but the lack of IS already makes it less interesting for the video crowd.

Final thoughts: some standard zoom users will be unhappy that it "only" goes to 28mm at the wide end. And yes - it does make a difference from being able to go to 24mm. If you want to use this lens as your only wide angle lens its worth considering this limitation. If not you gain more than you lose by having an amazing f/2 zoom lens in your hands allowing for very low light photography at a very high quality. So five stars from me.

You have to take the flare in consideration with the fact that it is an f/2 zoom. It has a lot of glass. It's actually pretty good when you take that into account. Compare to say the 35L f/1.4 II, even stopped down to f/1.8 the 35L has worse veiling flare than the 28-70 f/2. So, I would say the 28-70 is pretty darn good. But it is more than a thousand dollars more expensive than the 35L... so maybe you have a point. But in absolute terms it's actually really good.

You keep repeating that about the 35LII... In my experience, it has very high flare resistance.

I use it wide open all the time and I have no complaints!

This is a very flat image.

 

[havanna60]

Still you can confidently shot it @f/2 most of the time (which really is the only reason to get this lens). As for lacking IS I expect Canon will "fix" this by offering IBIS on their next R-series body.

Excellent review. I used to have an EOS R, and there there were only two badly missing features for me: IBIS and crop-less 4K internal external.

This lens along with the TS-E 17mmf4L mandates Canon to make an EOS R mark II or whatever to include IBIS and crop-free 4K. I can use the TS-E brilliantly on Pansonic S1, S1R, S1H, Nikon Z6, Z7, Sony A7III, A7RIV, A7RIII, A9, A9II all with excellent in-body image stabilization, and full-frame non-cropping 4K. I know, Canon has no IBIS technology today, but I don't believe that Canon cannot keep up with the competition. This brilliant lens, the 2870f2 do deserves at least a semi decent Canon body with IBIS. Techart already made a Sony E to Z mount adapter , but not for RF to Z, so we have to wait for Canon or Techart when we want to use this lens on an IBIS camera.

I personally dislike that it extends (the lens length changes as you zoom in/out). but not everyone else will care.

Excellent point. At this price internal zoom would be justifiable. Yesterday I had a chance to experiment with the new Tamron 17-28 f2.8 III , and its internal zooming was brilliant. On the other hand the no-slouch Tamron 28-70 f2.8 has no internal zooming either.

BTW, I was absolutely stunned how great these newly designed-for-mirrorless Tamron lenses were. I guess, when and if Tamron has the RF protocol, these lenses would be available for RF cameras, too.

I do not do much video and cannot comment on the noise levels while zooming, but the lack of IS already makes it less interesting for the video crowd.

Even if it did, the hilarious 1.8x crop in 4K both internal and external of EOS R gives an "50mm FOV" as the wide end to this lens.

Final thoughts: some standard zoom users will be unhappy that it "only" goes to 28mm at the wide end. And yes - it does make a difference from being able to go to 24mm. If you want to use this lens as your only wide angle lens its worth considering this limitation. If not you gain more than you lose by having an amazing f/2 zoom lens in your hands allowing for very low light photography at a very high quality. So five stars from me.

Your conclusion makes me even more sure that Canon must make a camera matching this lens next year. Or, at least Techart to make the RF - Z adapter.

--
Thank you for taking the time reading. I use DPReview as my photography/videography blog. If you like it, click Like, or leave some comments.
Have fun on http://www.flickr.com/photos/99398503@N07/sets

 

[Daft Punk]

Full disclosure - was an R owner but did not get on with it ( missed IBIS ) so I have moved on. But Canon glass keeps bringing me back and I am hoping future cameras will have IBIS for fast primes.

So, I tried the 28-70 last weekend.

I have very mixed feelings.

I respect the quality of the lens - build is great and it is certainly sharp.

However, I cannot see myself ever owning one.

Why? I shoot street, architecture, environments. I like to be unnoticed - I wear black and I tend to tape over my camera logo's. I hate being the "camera guy". I do not want people to notice me.

This lens makes it impossible to be stealthy. It is a huge, threatening, intimidating lump. If someone pointed that thing at me, I would have a problem with that. So I do not expect the ordinary Joe to appreciate it either.

If I was shooting weddings and other public events where I am there for a purpose - not a problem. This is a stellar lens.

But for casual, " turn up and see what I find" work, this lens makes you stand out like you would not believe.

I went back to the store the next day and returned it, explaining that I would not purchase, with zero regrets.

 

[havanna60]

I am hoping future cameras will have IBIS for fast primes.

I've just checked the most recent L-grade RF lens lineup and all 2.8 L zooms have optical image stabilization including the 24-70 and 15-35. Even some RF prime lenses have image stabilization, too. The message is clear: I wouldn't expect in-camera image stabilization in RF cameras any soon. All other manufacturers have gone for IBIS, but Canon hasn't and possibly will not.

The RF2870f2 is meant for scenarios where image stabilization is not needed or can be avoided high shutter stills, external (gimbal) or electronic for video.

 

[J A C S]

I am hoping future cameras will have IBIS for fast primes.

I've just checked the most recent L-grade RF lens lineup and all 2.8 L zooms have optical image stabilization including the 24-70 and 15-35. Even some RF prime lenses have image stabilization, too. The message is clear: I wouldn't expect in-camera image stabilization in RF cameras any soon. All other manufacturers have gone for IBIS, but Canon hasn't and possibly will not.

They said they will.

The RF2870f2 is meant for scenarios where image stabilization is not needed or can be avoided high shutter stills, external (gimbal) or electronic for video.

 

[Lawn Lends]

I am hoping future cameras will have IBIS for fast primes.

I've just checked the most recent L-grade RF lens lineup and all 2.8 L zooms have optical image stabilization including the 24-70 and 15-35. Even some RF prime lenses have image stabilization, too. The message is clear: I wouldn't expect in-camera image stabilization in RF cameras any soon. All other manufacturers have gone for IBIS, but Canon hasn't and possibly will not.

The RF2870f2 is meant for scenarios where image stabilization is not needed or can be avoided high shutter stills, external (gimbal) or electronic for video.

So if the R II has IBIS that works with unstabilized lenses, will you admit you are completely wrong?

And there could be reasons (other than that Canon was incapable of adding it and it wasn't needed because of the speed of the lens) why IS was left off the RF 28-70f2 and not the 24-70f2.8 such as weight and cost (presumably heavier elements of the F2 would require a more expensive and heavier ILIS). The lens could have been designed this way because Canon plans to come out with IBIS in future bodies like the R II and Rs.