I've been a 'lurker' around these forums for a number of years as a hobbyist and have benefited immensely from the community AND DPR as an organisation. It is my firm belief that the hobby wouldn't be where it is without these forums and this organisation! Huge fan of the content they put up on Youtube too. So I've decided to make a small contribution in the form of a small written review as a means of contributing back to the community.
Context: While not my main source of income, I've been doing paid work for about 2-3 years after being a hobbyist for about 12 years (since I was 15! back when Kai and Lok were at their prime in DigitalRev!) I never intended it to be a source of income, but after helping a few friends out, it turned out that quite a number of people really liked my work and I've since had a decent stream of requests for shoots. I've had to refuse a couple because of my other commitments.
All of this is to say that, while I'm not a 'pro', I'm also not just another guy on the internet with money to spend on gear but with not much experience having to actually deliver results for others. I've also had a serious bout of GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome, I'm not sure if anyone still uses this term though haha) and in recent times I've used the a7ii and z6 systems - so I've got other systems to compare the setup that I'm about to review to!
The following review will be a more personal/experiential one rather than a technical one:
The RF 28-70 F2, a controversial lens
Big chonky boy
As a 'semi-pro', getting this lens was a difficult decision to make - it would become THE most expensive single purchase that I've ever made and at the time (~1 year + ago), there wasn't a whole bunch of reviews on it because of how unique of a lens it was. The reviews that were out all praised it's excellent image quality, but there were many concerns raised about it's practicality - with many arguing that this lens was probably just Canon 'flexing' with what they can accomplish with the RF mount rather than intending for it to be a successful product (Think the Nikon Z 50mm f0.95 MF lens).
However, I was at a point in my career where I couldn't commit to more shoots and found the prospect of owning two camera bodies and two primes to be quite wasteful. For my needs, I wanted to only own one good camera body and one good lens. So I pulled the trigger (quite impulsively, I might add) , and got the R6 and was lucky enough to find a used RF 28-70 with a tiny scratch on the front element for a decent price.
At this point, most people will know about the main attraction of the lens: A constant fixed aperture of f2 - and a reputation for delivering excellent sharpness and contrast through the zoom range.
On IQ:
Back in the day, there would be plenty of debates about whether or not a lens is sharp enough and there would be conflicting opinions as to whether or not a lens was good. MTF charts were already a thing back then, but back in the DLSR days, it was actually really important to look at multiple image samples from a said lens one was researching because the variance in IQ in older lenses were quite large, and this was during a time of a rapidly growing market + rapidly developing technology.
And so there was a prevailing wisdom that prime lenses are almost always certain to be sharper than zoom lenses, and this was very obvious in older lenses. For example, if you'd compare Sigma's first generation 24-70 EX DG HSM (which is the first lens I ever bought as an upgrade for my 450D) to something like the nifty 50 at the time, the difference in image quality is very very big.
But lens design has come a long way, and to my mind, the sharpness of most lenses have improved so much that even if prime lenses still beat zoom lenses, the difference is quite difficult to tell (especially if you're consuming the content on a laptop/phone and not on some professional 5k display)
& so when I say that the sharpness of the 28-70 is impressive, I mean that it is sufficiently sharp that most people won't be able to tell the difference between it and say the RF 50mm 1.2L from a pure sharpness perspective - I use the RF50 as an example because that is the only other lens I've been able to compare it to! While I can probably spot the difference between a picture shot at 50mm f2 on the 1.2L and the 28-70, it's very likely to be negligible and only noticeable on my 27 inch 4K display.
But sharpness isn't everything. Colour rendition, vignetting, bokeh rendering all contribute towards the IQ - Without going into too much technical detail, I think the lens performs excellently for a zoom lens, and while vignetting and distortion is an issue - I think they can be easily fixed in post using the profile correction settings in LR.
On the subject of colour rendition and bokeh, I think it renders colours in a way that suits the very popular pastel colour palette that dominates the wedding scene these days (& I think for a very good reason! but that is a topic for another day).
The bokeh is also pleasing, I'm a HUUUGE bokeh fan, and I think many people are even if they don't have the words to describe it. I believe that f2 is enough for pleasing shallow DoF shots even at 28mm to make a picture pop, as if you were using prime lenses. The rendering of the Bokeh is also very smooth and not distracting at all.
This was probably a shot from 60-70mm @ f2
On practicality:
This is probably where a user review will be most helpful - While a quick search on the internet will show of the multitudes of people who will attest to the sheer IQ of the lens; debate exists about whether or not it is practical. Everyone agrees that it is a special lens because of how large the aperture is for a zoom lens; but is it worth it?
The first cost: weight. This lens isn't actually too heavy on paper - at least that was what I told myself before purchasing it. Weighing in at 1430g, it seems to be only slightly heavier compared to the Sigma 85mm 1.4 ART that I used in the past, coming in at 1130g. Before I got this lens, I was using a pretty standard two camera two prime set up attached to something like the 'HoldFast Moneymaker' strap that distributes the weight of both cameras very well. I figured that if I used the same strap but attached to the R6 + 28-70, the setup will be more than useable for a full 12 hour wedding day. I was partially right. More on this later
I'm also still relatively young and fit - I am a moderately built asian male who goes to the gym quite frequently (following a powerlifting program), but I have tiny hands.
After 2 long weddings, my experience is that the above solution really helped with carrying the camera around in general without causing significant fatigue. I didn't wake up the next day with significant soreness to, though I definitely felt tired (but I think this will happen regardless of the gear you use given the intensity of being a wedding photog, especially during scorching Australian summers!). However, for me the biggest problem was holding the camera up to my face for a prolonged period of time - the problem wasn't the weight but the sheer girth of the lens. I can barely wrap half of my hands around the barrel of the lens, and I suspect it meant my right hand (holding the body) had to do more work to stabilise the setup since my left hand isn't able to have much of a grip on the lens. While it didn't result in a wrist injury to me, nor did I feel my wrist being sore the next day, it was definitely uncomfortable to hold up the camera - and this was quite annoying when having to hold the camera up while waiting for something you're expecting to happen (e.g. preparing for the kiss)
However, to balance out that experience is the understated benefit of having a zoom lens for a wedding day - I've been shooting primes exclusively ever since Kai W launched that video back in the heyday of DigitalRev, so I was blown away by how convenient it was to have a zoom lens and not having to move around as much as I normally would. In this respect the lens actually saved some energy! This, and coupled with the amazing AF system on the R6 resulted in the most keepers that I've ever had from any wedding - which also meant a lot more editing because there were simply a lot more useable pictures. I can't stress enough on how having a zoom allows for faster focal lengths changing vs having two bodies, and how the added flexibility gives you a lot more creative options at any given time. I did find myself wishing for the wider end of the zoom range to be at 24mm sometimes though...
AF is fast enough to follow the bride and groom through the sparklers
A quick note on AF:
Look it's really good on the R6, but I did find that eye detect didn't come online as quickly as the RF 50mm 1.2L. But even when subject tracking was only selecting faces, it would still produce very sharp images and locked on very quickly. The only other time I played around with a zoom lens was with the Tamron 28-75mm + A7III, and the 28-70 R6 combo feels just as fast, maybe a hair slower (more glass to move). Definitely more than good enough for weddings.
Concluding thoughts:
This is definitely a special and totally useable lens - there are genuine benefits for owning this over a two camera, two prime lens combo. I've personally sold the lens as I've decided to no longer shoot weddings, only engagements - and while there are benefits for using it for an engagement shoot as well, the benefits don't stand out as much vs a full wedding day that requires far more flexibility. The results from this lens is so good that at one engagement shoot I found myself keeping the RF50mm in the bag and relied solely on the 28-70.
The weight and girth is definitely a big cost to owning and using it, but it's not as bad as some people make it out to be! I do think that photographers with average sized male hands won't have as much of an issue with it as I did - but alas, I can't change my genetics.
Bonus thoughts on the R6:
This camera reminds me of the EOS 6D - when the reviews came out, it was presented to be significantly worse than Nikon's rival d600, but having owned both there were features about the 6D that were not marketed (or difficult to market) that made it such a joy to use. Some lesser known facts about the R6 that have huge real world implications:
1. The sensor read out time on the R6 is quite fast
Pictures with E-shutter alone are totally useable without seeing significant banding issues. I think Tony Northup made a graph comparing the read out time of the R6's sensor vs the A7IV and it's likely twice as fast. I still wouldn't use it indoors because of the streaking that results from artificial lighting (that and it's not as fast as something like that A9 or R3) - but outdoors it is incredible!
2. cRAW saved me a lot of space, at little to no cost
I think Fstoppers made a helpful comparison between RAW and cRAW showing negligible differences. It's changed the way I shoot now, such that I actually always shoot at a high burst rate because of how capable to AF and buffer is + I don't need to worry about full cards. Avg file size is <10mb!
