Weighs a bloody ton

[MinutiaeDiablo]

And I wouldn't be without it. I am an event Photographer who likes to take pictures of runners with a record of where they were running rather than, "oh look it's me running towards the camera". The quality is magnificent. Prior to using Canon I had a range of prime lenses for the quality. After the reviews of this lens I decided to buy it as a prime lens from 28 to 70 mm, and it is better than expected. I am a pixel peeper on one level because I demand quality in my work (don't always get it) but it's speed of focus attached to the EOS R3 is 2nd to none, and it's quality of image is beautiful. It breaks all the rules about if it's an F2 .8 lens then its best image comes it F5 .6 or whatever, without question the best quality I get, not with standing runners coming at me on both shoulders every half second, Its f2.0 is better than anything I have ever used.

 

[BlueRay2]

i don't have the RF version but i do have the EF 24-70 f2.8 II, and i get the same result as you have described. i feel like i have primes in that range all wrapped up in 24-70 II. thanks for the review.

 

[RogerZoul]

It does weigh a bloody ton. I had borrowed this lens from Canon early on after I got my R5. I could not figure out how to use it in what I do, but I could tell it was a stellar performer, for someone other than me!

 

[PhotoKhan]

And I wouldn't be without it. I am an event Photographer who likes to take pictures of runners with a record of where they were running rather than, "oh look it's me running towards the camera". The quality is magnificent. Prior to using Canon I had a range of prime lenses for the quality. After the reviews of this lens I decided to buy it as a prime lens from 28 to 70 mm, and it is better than expected. I am a pixel peeper on one level because I demand quality in my work (don't always get it) but it's speed of focus attached to the EOS R3 is 2nd to none, and it's quality of image is beautiful. It breaks all the rules about if it's an F2 .8 lens then its best image comes it F5 .6 or whatever, without question the best quality I get, not with standing runners coming at me on both shoulders every half second, Its f2.0 is better than anything I have ever used.

This a non-obvious FL option and I bet the design team had some difficulty pushing the idea to the "powers that be", at Canon.

But it was a great gamble, an unique lens with an unique character.

As far as I am concerned, the 28-70 his one of the main reasons why I am enjoying the R system so much.

PK

--
“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
https://www.instagram.com/lisboa_ao_voo_do_passaro/
http://www.humbertoborgesfotografia.com/
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(PBase Supporter)
-------------------------------------------------

 

[thunder storm]

i don't have the RF version but i do have the EF 24-70 f2.8 II, and i get the same result as you have described. i feel like i have primes in that range all wrapped up in 24-70 II.

Hmmmmm..... that's not my feeling with my EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM mkII.

 

[BlueRay2]

i don't have the RF version but i do have the EF 24-70 f2.8 II, and i get the same result as you have described. i feel like i have primes in that range all wrapped up in 24-70 II.

Hmmmmm..... that's not my feeling with my EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM mkII.

then something is wrong, its worth looking into.what kind of issue you have? my lens is glued on my 5DsR and sometimes on my 1Dx. i only carry my 2470 f2.8 mk2 and canon 100-400 mk2, everywhere i go, nothing else. am very happy with both.

 

[PicPocket]

i don't have the RF version but i do have the EF 24-70 f2.8 II, and i get the same result as you have described. i feel like i have primes in that range all wrapped up in 24-70 II. thanks for the review.

I guess the difference is we have f2.8 primes, while the OP has the f2 ones. I think it makes a visible difference. The bulk is the only reason stopping me to move from the 24-70 mk II to the RF f2 zoom

 

[bluevellet]

I remember trying the lens at a store some years ago. I was very impressed. But I couldn't get over attaching the lens to a Canon R or RP (the only RF mount bodies available at the time).

Obviously, RF cameras got better since then, but I had already moved on. So you could say Canon's early RF mount strategy cost the company a sale, at least with me.

 

[PhotoKhan]

I remember trying the lens at a store some years ago. I was very impressed. But I couldn't get over attaching the lens to a Canon R or RP (the only RF mount bodies available at the time).

Obviously, RF cameras got better since then, but I had already moved on. So you could say Canon's early RF mount strategy cost the company a sale, at least with me.

All taken with the EOS R.































































PK

--
“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
https://www.instagram.com/lisboa_ao_voo_do_passaro/
http://www.humbertoborgesfotografia.com/
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(PBase Supporter)
-------------------------------------------------

 

[R2D2]

Nicely done PK.

Yup, I absolutely adore the 28-70 too. Beyond the expanded capabilities (being an f/2 zoom), it also imparts that “something special” to photos that the L Primes have always been known for.

I use it mainly for my event shooting, and couldn’t be happier. And wish everybody could experience its goodness at some point too!

R2

--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

 

[PicPocket]

wish everybody could experience its goodness at some point too!

I wish your wish comes true, for my sake :-D

 

[KEG]

Nicely done PK.

Yup, I absolutely adore the 28-70 too. Beyond the expanded capabilities (being an f/2 zoom), it also imparts that “something special” to photos that the L Primes have always been known for.

I use it mainly for my event shooting, and couldn’t be happier. And wish everybody could experience its goodness at some point too!

I have building my R setup at much lazier pace than my EF-M and I am thinking of getting RF 28-70, 15-35/2.8 and 70-200/2.8, of those the 28-70 is basically the one that I need.

R2

 

[thunder storm]

Looking at your pictures I'm getting the feeling it's actually a plus the zoom range starts at 28mm in stead of 24, as it prevents you from using 24mm overdoing the wide angle look. 28mm is more subtle.

You can do a lot of these with 28+50mm (lens changes, I know), eventually adding the RF 85mm f/2.0 IS stm.

 

[thunder storm]

i don't have the RF version but i do have the EF 24-70 f2.8 II, and i get the same result as you have described. i feel like i have primes in that range all wrapped up in 24-70 II.

Hmmmmm..... that's not my feeling with my EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM mkII.

then something is wrong, its worth looking into.what kind of issue you have? my lens is glued on my 5DsR and sometimes on my 1Dx. i only carry my 2470 f2.8 mk2 and canon 100-400 mk2, everywhere i go, nothing else. am very happy with both.

There are no issues, but for me it's just a zoom not replacing my 28,40,50(ART)&(RF f/2.0)85mm primes. It's a sharp lens, but the difference between f/2.8 and f/3.2 is clear, and at f/3.2 the 28mm is still sharper at f/1.6, the 40mm at f/1.4, the 50mm at f/2.0, and the 85mm does better at f2.0 than the zoom at 70mm & f/3.2 and gives ILIS as a bonus.

 

[thunder storm]

Nicely done PK.

Yup, I absolutely adore the 28-70 too. Beyond the expanded capabilities (being an f/2 zoom), it also imparts that “something special” to photos that the L Primes have always been known for.

Without seeing the pictures this sounds very much like BS, however, I totally agree with you.

I use it mainly for my event shooting, and couldn’t be happier. And wish everybody could experience its goodness at some point too!

R2

 

[BlueRay2]

Looking at your pictures I'm getting the feeling it's actually a plus the zoom range starts at 28mm in stead of 24, as it prevents you from using 24mm overdoing the wide angle look. 28mm is more subtle.

that just doesn't make any sense to me but i appreciate your opinion. at the wider end, 4mm makes a difference.

You can do a lot of these with 28+50mm (lens changes, I know), eventually adding the RF 85mm f/2.0 IS stm.

to me, 24mm is wide enough, i don't want any wider lens than that, as far as my experience is concerned.

 

[thunder storm]

Just an opinion, that's right.

 

[PhotoKhan]

Looking at your pictures I'm getting the feeling it's actually a plus the zoom range starts at 28mm in stead of 24, as it prevents you from using 24mm overdoing the wide angle look. 28mm is more subtle.

You can do a lot of these with 28+50mm (lens changes, I know), eventually adding the RF 85mm f/2.0 IS stm.

In my view, what warrants the use of 28mm are not the same scenes where the 24mm most shines.

They cover different purposes.

I've always seen 24mm on FF as the "environmental portrait" FL of choice.

If one wants to photograph human beings doing "their thing", be it in working environments or leisure/sports ones, 24mm ads to the narrative in a way that may fully describe the ambience, while still keeping the human figure the main reference.

It has come to a point where I can recognize 24mm has been used, almost intuitively, whenever I happen to come across an example of that type of photographs.

It is also the reason I have been eagerly waiting for a 24mm from Canon (...the EF versions did not fit the "price-to-performance" bill, in my view...) and already have the RF offer under reserve, here in my country.

PK

 

[KEG]

Looking at your pictures I'm getting the feeling it's actually a plus the zoom range starts at 28mm in stead of 24, as it prevents you from using 24mm overdoing the wide angle look. 28mm is more subtle.

You can do a lot of these with 28+50mm (lens changes, I know), eventually adding the RF 85mm f/2.0 IS stm.

In my view, what warrants the use of 28mm are not the same scenes where the 24mm most shines.

In my experience for most parts 35 mm is wide enough for people which is kind of the reason why the Fuji X100 series have 23 mm lens, so for that reason 35-70 mm lens would be more than sufficient.

They cover different purposes.

I've always seen 24mm on FF as the "environmental portrait" FL of choice.

If one wants to photograph human beings doing "their thing", be it in working environments or leisure/sports ones, 24mm ads to the narrative in a way that may fully describe the ambience, while still keeping the human figure the main reference.

It has come to a point where I can recognize 24mm has been used, almost intuitively, whenever I happen to come across an example of that type of photographs.

It is also the reason I have been eagerly waiting for a 24mm from Canon (...the EF versions did not fit the "price-to-performance" bill, in my view...) and already have the RF offer under reserve, here in my country.

PK

 

[BlueRay2]

Looking at your pictures I'm getting the feeling it's actually a plus the zoom range starts at 28mm in stead of 24, as it prevents you from using 24mm overdoing the wide angle look. 28mm is more subtle.

You can do a lot of these with 28+50mm (lens changes, I know), eventually adding the RF 85mm f/2.0 IS stm.

In my view, what warrants the use of 28mm are not the same scenes where the 24mm most shines.

In my experience for most parts 35 mm is wide enough for people which is kind of the reason why the Fuji X100 series have 23 mm lens, so for that reason 35-70 mm lens would be more than sufficient.

but that is only in theory and very subjective. i like 35mm FL but not wide enough for group shots or some landscape. like i have mentioned before, i love my canon EF 24-70 f2.8 mk2. i have done several wedding parties without using flash (using available light) and got a great deal of keepers.

They cover different purposes.

I've always seen 24mm on FF as the "environmental portrait" FL of choice.

If one wants to photograph human beings doing "their thing", be it in working environments or leisure/sports ones, 24mm ads to the narrative in a way that may fully describe the ambience, while still keeping the human figure the main reference.

It has come to a point where I can recognize 24mm has been used, almost intuitively, whenever I happen to come across an example of that type of photographs.

It is also the reason I have been eagerly waiting for a 24mm from Canon (...the EF versions did not fit the "price-to-performance" bill, in my view...) and already have the RF offer under reserve, here in my country.

PK