STUNNING Optics

This lens is so so good. I use it almost 100% of the time at f2. This lens lives on my EOS R while I am on motion picture sets. It really substitutes three L primes (24, 35 and 50) and it is better optically (and with faster and more accurate AF) than any of those EF lenses wide open.

sneakyracer wrote:

This lens is so so good. I use it almost 100% of the time at f2. This lens lives on my EOS R while I am on motion picture sets. It really substitutes three L primes (24, 35 and 50) and it is better optically (and with faster and more accurate AF) than any of those EF lenses wide open.

Here is the one big problem with this lens that nobody mentions. It has substantial focus breathing up close. This is a bummer because it does limit the amount of background blur you can get with that huge f/2 aperture. You can get pretty close with the lens but the focus breathing keeps the maximum magnification low at around .18x while the RF 24-70 gets .3x.

It just sucks that such an expensive lens isn't really hitting 70mm in a lot of portrait scenarios. I'm actually thinking about selling mine as much as I like it for the fast aperture and high image quality. It's huge and I feel that due to the weight and bulk and intimidation factor (I have had more than one customer mention that the lens is huge), it might not quite add up.

The EF 35mm f1.4L and the EF 50mm f1.2L. This new lens just focuses a bit faster and better and is just overall much more consistent at the wider apertures. The EF primes need to be stopped down to f2 to get really good quality out of them and even so at f2 the new RF lens is better. That is not the case with the new RF primes but the convenience of the zoom is unmatched (and will actually save you $)

shawnphoto wrote:

sneakyracer wrote:

This lens is so so good. I use it almost 100% of the time at f2. This lens lives on my EOS R while I am on motion picture sets. It really substitutes three L primes (24, 35 and 50) and it is better optically (and with faster and more accurate AF) than any of those EF lenses wide open.

Here is the one big problem with this lens that nobody mentions. It has substantial focus breathing up close. This is a bummer because it does limit the amount of background blur you can get with that huge f/2 aperture. You can get pretty close with the lens but the focus breathing keeps the maximum magnification low at around .18x while the RF 24-70 gets .3x.

It just sucks that such an expensive lens isn't really hitting 70mm in a lot of portrait scenarios. I'm actually thinking about selling mine as much as I like it for the fast aperture and high image quality. It's huge and I feel that due to the weight and bulk and intimidation factor (I have had more than one customer mention that the lens is huge), it might not quite add up.

True, if one does not NEED the f2 aperture one is better off with the 24-70 no question and for portraits the 70-200 f2.8's are even better.

That said since I shoot from a fixed position a lot of times and in tight and dimly lit spaces a LOT, the flexibility of the zoom range and the f2 aperture is awesome to have. It has made so many more shots possible for me.

The lens does offer an awesome look to the images shot at f2 even with the focus breathing. It really approaches cinema lens quality which is unreal for a MILC zoom. It is the best zoom made for mirrorless bar none.

Lens is great zoom thats for sure, but I wouldn't say stunning, up close wide open at 70mm it is quite soft. Also 35mm f1.4ii is better optically or similar level wide open. RF primes are better also.

I was thinking I would use the lens more but at the end I use primes mostly which are smaller , lighter and faster.

Well we are all different and this is good thing.

Kristian

It's a luxury lens, priced as such. I would expect high quality of it

sneakyracer wrote:

shawnphoto wrote:

sneakyracer wrote:

This lens is so so good. I use it almost 100% of the time at f2. This lens lives on my EOS R while I am on motion picture sets. It really substitutes three L primes (24, 35 and 50) and it is better optically (and with faster and more accurate AF) than any of those EF lenses wide open.

Here is the one big problem with this lens that nobody mentions. It has substantial focus breathing up close. This is a bummer because it does limit the amount of background blur you can get with that huge f/2 aperture. You can get pretty close with the lens but the focus breathing keeps the maximum magnification low at around .18x while the RF 24-70 gets .3x.

It just sucks that such an expensive lens isn't really hitting 70mm in a lot of portrait scenarios. I'm actually thinking about selling mine as much as I like it for the fast aperture and high image quality. It's huge and I feel that due to the weight and bulk and intimidation factor (I have had more than one customer mention that the lens is huge), it might not quite add up.

True, if one does not NEED the f2 aperture one is better off with the 24-70 no question and for portraits the 70-200 f2.8's are even better.

That said since I shoot from a fixed position a lot of times and in tight and dimly lit spaces a LOT, the flexibility of the zoom range and the f2 aperture is awesome to have. It has made so many more shots possible for me.

The lens does offer an awesome look to the images shot at f2 even with the focus breathing. It really approaches cinema lens quality which is unreal for a MILC zoom. It is the best zoom made for mirrorless bar none.

I think the RF 70-200 is better. It has nicer bokeh and is razor sharp end to end.

sneakyracer wrote:

The EF 35mm f1.4L and the EF 50mm f1.2L. This new lens just focuses a bit faster and better and is just overall much more consistent at the wider apertures. The EF primes need to be stopped down to f2 to get really good quality out of them and even so at f2 the new RF lens is better.

I may agree if you are talking about the older 35mm f/1.4 L (did not try that combo). But the 35mm f/1.4 L II is better than the RF 28-70 zoom.

shawnphoto wrote:

sneakyracer wrote:

This lens is so so good. I use it almost 100% of the time at f2. This lens lives on my EOS R while I am on motion picture sets. It really substitutes three L primes (24, 35 and 50) and it is better optically (and with faster and more accurate AF) than any of those EF lenses wide open.

Here is the one big problem with this lens that nobody mentions. It has substantial focus breathing up close. This is a bummer because it does limit the amount of background blur you can get with that huge f/2 aperture. You can get pretty close with the lens but the focus breathing keeps the maximum magnification low at around .18x while the RF 24-70 gets .3x.

It just sucks that such an expensive lens isn't really hitting 70mm in a lot of portrait scenarios. I'm actually thinking about selling mine as much as I like it for the fast aperture and high image quality. It's huge and I feel that due to the weight and bulk and intimidation factor (I have had more than one customer mention that the lens is huge), it might not quite add up.

Focus breathing is not a problem for the way I use the lens. But I agree that it is probably the most significant draw back of the lens together with only being 28mm at the wide end.

maiaibing wrote:

sneakyracer wrote:

The EF 35mm f1.4L and the EF 50mm f1.2L. This new lens just focuses a bit faster and better and is just overall much more consistent at the wider apertures. The EF primes need to be stopped down to f2 to get really good quality out of them and even so at f2 the new RF lens is better.

I may agree if you are talking about the older 35mm f/1.4 L (did not try that combo). But the 35mm f/1.4 L II is better than the RF 28-70 zoom.

Not in every way. The 35L II tends to have much more veiling flare than the 28-70L. It also has vastly inferior AF. Which is sad because the 28-70L is still a little clunky, albeit accurate, when it comes to AF.

To me, Canon deserves accolades for making this commercially viable and technically competent. Obviously it's not perfect but come on. It's a 2.5x F/2 zoom!

Prob a pipe dream but I hope they do a narrower range version. I'd love a 35-50 F/2. That could damn near be my only lens.

shawnphoto wrote:

maiaibing wrote:

sneakyracer wrote:

The EF 35mm f1.4L and the EF 50mm f1.2L. This new lens just focuses a bit faster and better and is just overall much more consistent at the wider apertures. The EF primes need to be stopped down to f2 to get really good quality out of them and even so at f2 the new RF lens is better.

I may agree if you are talking about the older 35mm f/1.4 L (did not try that combo). But the 35mm f/1.4 L II is better than the RF 28-70 zoom.

Not in every way. The 35L II tends to have much more veiling flare than the 28-70L. It also has vastly inferior AF. Which is sad because the 28-70L is still a little clunky, albeit accurate, when it comes to AF.

Do not agree with any of these. AF depends first and foremost on the camera when using mirrorless, and the Canon mirrorless systems handles EF lenses very well.

1Dx4me wrote:

shawnphoto wrote:

sneakyracer wrote:

This lens is so so good. I use it almost 100% of the time at f2. This lens lives on my EOS R while I am on motion picture sets. It really substitutes three L primes (24, 35 and 50) and it is better optically (and with faster and more accurate AF) than any of those EF lenses wide open.

Here is the one big problem with this lens that nobody mentions. It has substantial focus breathing up close. This is a bummer because it does limit the amount of background blur you can get with that huge f/2 aperture. You can get pretty close with the lens but the focus breathing keeps the maximum magnification low at around .18x while the RF 24-70 gets .3x.

It just sucks that such an expensive lens isn't really hitting 70mm in a lot of portrait scenarios. I'm actually thinking about selling mine as much as I like it for the fast aperture and high image quality. It's huge and I feel that due to the weight and bulk and intimidation factor (I have had more than one customer mention that the lens is huge), it might not quite add up.

would you please post a photo to demonstrate what you noted in your post, if you have the lens? because this is the first time i hear about this issue you referred to.

I’ll have to think of a way to test this, not sure how.

1Dx4me wrote:

shawnphoto wrote:

1Dx4me wrote:

shawnphoto wrote:

sneakyracer wrote:

This lens is so so good. I use it almost 100% of the time at f2. This lens lives on my EOS R while I am on motion picture sets. It really substitutes three L primes (24, 35 and 50) and it is better optically (and with faster and more accurate AF) than any of those EF lenses wide open.

Here is the one big problem with this lens that nobody mentions. It has substantial focus breathing up close. This is a bummer because it does limit the amount of background blur you can get with that huge f/2 aperture. You can get pretty close with the lens but the focus breathing keeps the maximum magnification low at around .18x while the RF 24-70 gets .3x.

It just sucks that such an expensive lens isn't really hitting 70mm in a lot of portrait scenarios. I'm actually thinking about selling mine as much as I like it for the fast aperture and high image quality. It's huge and I feel that due to the weight and bulk and intimidation factor (I have had more than one customer mention that the lens is huge), it might not quite add up.

would you please post a photo to demonstrate what you noted in your post, if you have the lens? because this is the first time i hear about this issue you referred to.

I’ll have to think of a way to test this, not sure how.

thanks for the response, shawn, i went online to several different sites and watched videos about this issue, they were quite informative thanks again.

Video makes it easier to see than a photo for sure. I noticed the effect in use but I was recently using the old 28-80L and I noticed that 80mm is a LOT closer than I'm used to, turns out the 70mm setting is also closer than the 70mm on the RF 28-70.

The old 28-70mm f/2.8 also has less focus breathing in my limited testing.

1Dx4me wrote:

shawnphoto wrote:

1Dx4me wrote:

shawnphoto wrote:

1Dx4me wrote:

shawnphoto wrote:

sneakyracer wrote:

This lens is so so good. I use it almost 100% of the time at f2. This lens lives on my EOS R while I am on motion picture sets. It really substitutes three L primes (24, 35 and 50) and it is better optically (and with faster and more accurate AF) than any of those EF lenses wide open.

Here is the one big problem with this lens that nobody mentions. It has substantial focus breathing up close. This is a bummer because it does limit the amount of background blur you can get with that huge f/2 aperture. You can get pretty close with the lens but the focus breathing keeps the maximum magnification low at around .18x while the RF 24-70 gets .3x.

It just sucks that such an expensive lens isn't really hitting 70mm in a lot of portrait scenarios. I'm actually thinking about selling mine as much as I like it for the fast aperture and high image quality. It's huge and I feel that due to the weight and bulk and intimidation factor (I have had more than one customer mention that the lens is huge), it might not quite add up.

would you please post a photo to demonstrate what you noted in your post, if you have the lens? because this is the first time i hear about this issue you referred to.

I’ll have to think of a way to test this, not sure how.

thanks for the response, shawn, i went online to several different sites and watched videos about this issue, they were quite informative thanks again.

Video makes it easier to see than a photo for sure. I noticed the effect in use but I was recently using the old 28-80L and I noticed that 80mm is a LOT closer than I'm used to, turns out the 70mm setting is also closer than the 70mm on the RF 28-70.

The old 28-70mm f/2.8 also has less focus breathing in my limited testing.

and the video suggested that it doesn't make any difference in static photos, which makes sense based on demonstration!

It does make a difference to me as I noted. It's *not* 70mm, how can that not make a difference?