Canon RF 28-70 F/2 L

cpharm86 wrote:

RLight wrote:

cpharm86 wrote:

Thank you to everyone that gave me input to my question on the RF 28-70 lens.

I looked up my metadata in Lightroom over the past several years and in 2022 using the R5 camera.

Out of 4,500 shots in 2022 with all lenses I own I used f/1.2, 1.4, 1.6, 1.8, 2.2 only 74 times. 1,755 shots were at f/5.6

I spoke to my local camera shop today and he mentioned Canon might have their trade-in program starting tomorrow. I am not familiar with that program.

Based on my aperture uses and owning the Canon RF 50mm f/1.2L and Canon RF 85mm 1.2L I might just go with the Canon RF 24-70mm and either trade-in or sell my current Canon EF 24-70 2.8L ii.

I don’t have an issue paying the extra $700 for the RF 28-70 but think it will be more practical to use the RF 24-70mm. Easier to haul around all day, 24mm vs 28 mm. Not saying that if I had f/2.0 I wouldn’t shoot more below f/2.8 since I don’t need to change lenses but that is hard to say.

Out of the 4,500 shots I used 24mm 192 times and 28mm 76 times. 1,200 shots were between f/5.6 and f/7.1.

Thank for listening for my rationalization.

Do you shoot P, Auto, Fv, Tv, Av? Very important question.

Manual, typically set AV/TV and go with AUTO iso.

By what I just heard, either A. You’re best served with stabilized F/4L lenses or B. You’re just not using what’s on tap to you now. A 28-70 as cool as it is, won’t fix anything for you other than put a dent in you wallet.

At my age I’m not overly concerned with a small dent in my wallet. I’ve worked over 50 years and I guess I’m saving for our 3 daughters retirement. Aside from that, I’m am careful with what I spend. You never know.

Even an f/2.8 is a waste for you.

I want that option when needed. Based on my shooting habits I have determined I don’t need the 28-70mm. I do want to get the RF 24-70 though since that is the lens I would probably use well over 50% of the time and I agree that carrying the 28-70 most of a day would get tiring. I have a buyer for the EF 24-70.

Thank you for your input.

Seriously give it some thought as to why you shoot, what you shoot. If you can answer, you have answered your own question.

I get it, I’m a systems engineer, well funded. Part of being well funded is not being frivolous too though. Be smart with investing, controlled costs, and discretionary which this obviously is.

I used to be a fast prime guy, till I met the 28-70. That said it’s a people popper. If that’s not your intent? You should think about f/2.8, f/4, absolutely.

paratom wrote:

From 50/1.2 to 2870/2.0 there are 1.5 stops of difference.

From 2870 to 2470/2.8 it is one f-stop difference.

For me the 1 stop difference doesn't justify the big size and reduced wide angel of the 2870 vs the 2470.

For my taste the 2870 is too big. In this range I shoot subjects/people where I want to get close and where I do not want to put a monster lens in their face.

Even the 2470/2.8 is a little big for my taste.

I wish Canon offered some high quality compact primes in the 1.4-1.8 range.

I think the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS stm is okayish. But there's nothing like the FE 50mm f/1.4 GM @516 grams, Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DN @630 grams. Add a 200 grams 28mm f/2.0 and you're good to go.  No need for an f/1.2 prime vs f/2.0 zoom discussion.

thunder storm wrote:

paratom wrote:

From 50/1.2 to 2870/2.0 there are 1.5 stops of difference.

From 2870 to 2470/2.8 it is one f-stop difference.

For me the 1 stop difference doesn't justify the big size and reduced wide angel of the 2870 vs the 2470.

For my taste the 2870 is too big. In this range I shoot subjects/people where I want to get close and where I do not want to put a monster lens in their face.

Even the 2470/2.8 is a little big for my taste.

I wish Canon offered some high quality compact primes in the 1.4-1.8 range.

I think the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS stm is okayish. But there's nothing like the FE 50mm f/1.4 GM @516 grams, Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DN @630 grams. Add a 200 grams 28mm f/2.0 and you're good to go. No need for an f/1.2 prime vs f/2.0 zoom discussion.

Good stuff Storm.  What is needed is small A7CII

paratom wrote:

From 50/1.2 to 2870/2.0 there are 1.5 stops of difference.

From 2870 to 2470/2.8 it is one f-stop difference.

For me the 1 stop difference doesn't justify the big size and reduced wide angel of the 2870 vs the 2470.

Unless the big zoom is giving you angel-ic images.

For my taste the 2870 is too big. In this range I shoot subjects/people where I want to get close and where I do not want to put a monster lens in their face.

As I mentioned, I use this lens largely for shooting events and sports (where I am the paid photographer), and people expect that they’ll be getting their pictures taken. Maintaining excellent rapport is always important.

Even the 2470/2.8 is a little big for my taste.

Yes, when I want to stay low key, I love the stealth of a small lens on the M6ii with its discreet tilting LCD.

I wish Canon offered some high quality compact primes in the 1.4-1.8 range.

Another side of the double-edged sword that is the 28-70 is that it garners a LOT of attention from potential clients at these events. They’re always inquiring. Even other photographers get all goggle-eyed at this thing. I turn down way more work than I can ever possibly do, and yet still get myself into trouble (not enough free time!).

Alas.

R2

R2D2 wrote:

paratom wrote:

From 50/1.2 to 2870/2.0 there are 1.5 stops of difference.

From 2870 to 2470/2.8 it is one f-stop difference.

For me the 1 stop difference doesn't justify the big size and reduced wide angel of the 2870 vs the 2470.

Unless the big zoom is giving you angel-ic images.

For my taste the 2870 is too big. In this range I shoot subjects/people where I want to get close and where I do not want to put a monster lens in their face.

As I mentioned, I use this lens largely for shooting events and sports (where I am the paid photographer), and people expect that they’ll be getting their pictures taken. Maintaining excellent rapport is always important.

exactly, the money lens!

Even the 2470/2.8 is a little big for my taste.

Yes, when I want to stay low key, I love the stealth of a small lens on the M6ii with its discreet tilting LCD.

mostly for fun, yep!

and occasionally for money

I wish Canon offered some high quality compact primes in the 1.4-1.8 range.

Another side of the double-edged sword that is the 28-70 is that it garners a LOT of attention from potential clients at these events. They’re always inquiring. Even other photographers get all goggle-eyed at this thing. I turn down way more work than I can ever possibly do, and yet still get myself into trouble (not enough free time!).

it has to be a fun gig, or I turn it down

R8 & RP & M6II for me so I can carry all 3

Alas.

R2

MAC wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

paratom wrote:

From 50/1.2 to 2870/2.0 there are 1.5 stops of difference.

From 2870 to 2470/2.8 it is one f-stop difference.

For me the 1 stop difference doesn't justify the big size and reduced wide angel of the 2870 vs the 2470.

For my taste the 2870 is too big. In this range I shoot subjects/people where I want to get close and where I do not want to put a monster lens in their face.

Even the 2470/2.8 is a little big for my taste.

I wish Canon offered some high quality compact primes in the 1.4-1.8 range.

I think the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS stm is okayish. But there's nothing like the FE 50mm f/1.4 GM @516 grams, Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DN @630 grams. Add a 200 grams 28mm f/2.0 and you're good to go. No need for an f/1.2 prime vs f/2.0 zoom discussion.

Good stuff Storm. What is needed is small A7CII

If they add a front dial it gets workable, but the A7IV + 28-60mm is a light enough setup for me.  Add the 50GM and 85DN for the holiday portraits and I'm covered for my basic travel setup. If wide angle & low light is a concern I can add the 28mm Art via MC11. That combo AFs a lot better than I expected.

I decided to keep the EF 85mm f/1.4 Art HSM.  When at home I really like to switch between R5 + the old 85mm Art and the A7IV 50mm GM without lens changes. At home the weight is no problem at all. So the DN is for travel purposes only.

paratom wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

I think the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS stm is okayish. But there's nothing like the FE 50mm f/1.4 GM @516 grams, Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DN @630 grams. Add a 200 grams 28mm f/2.0 and you're good to go. No need for an f/1.2 prime vs f/2.0 zoom discussion.

I own and use the 35/1.8 Rf and agree, its okays but not more.

I thought we are talking about lenses working on a Canon RF body, right?

Well, you're pretty selectively quoting here, as I was reacting on a contribution stating the lack of more compact f/1.4 options is a problem for the RF-mount. To evaluate the completeness of a system it never hurts to compare it to another system.

So a Sony lens doesn't help here

If you buy a Sony body next to your RF body it helps a lot if you want bright yet portable lenses.

MAC wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

paratom wrote:

From 50/1.2 to 2870/2.0 there are 1.5 stops of difference.

From 2870 to 2470/2.8 it is one f-stop difference.

For me the 1 stop difference doesn't justify the big size and reduced wide angel of the 2870 vs the 2470.

Unless the big zoom is giving you angel-ic images.

For my taste the 2870 is too big. In this range I shoot subjects/people where I want to get close and where I do not want to put a monster lens in their face.

As I mentioned, I use this lens largely for shooting events and sports (where I am the paid photographer), and people expect that they’ll be getting their pictures taken. Maintaining excellent rapport is always important.

exactly, the money lens!

Right-O.  And if I were strictly a portrait/wedding shooter I’d for sure have the big 50 and 85 L’s.

Even the 2470/2.8 is a little big for my taste.

Yes, when I want to stay low key, I love the stealth of a small lens on the M6ii with its discreet tilting LCD.

mostly for fun, yep!

and occasionally for money

It’s truly amazing how capable the little M6ii is, even in the company of the R family.

I wish Canon offered some high quality compact primes in the 1.4-1.8 range.

Another side of the double-edged sword that is the 28-70 is that it garners a LOT of attention from potential clients at these events. They’re always inquiring. Even other photographers get all goggle-eyed at this thing. I turn down way more work than I can ever possibly do, and yet still get myself into trouble (not enough free time!).

it has to be a fun gig, or I turn it down

Ah, the life!  

R8 & RP & M6II for me so I can carry all 3

Easy on the wallet, easy on the shoulder, and easy to shoot!  You’re in a good place.  

Enjoy!

R2

PhotoKhan wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

cpharm86 wrote:

There hasn’t been a lot of discussions on the RF 28-70 lately with all the new stuff from Canon surfacing.

About a year ago I went to my local camera store and tested the RF-28-70. One of the reasons I didn’t buy it was for the size and weight compared to my EF 24-70 2.8L ii. (of course price was a consideration also)

Well, I am back to the RF 28-70 consideration again. I don’t think I want to keep the 24-70 if I purchase the 28-70.

Has anyone that bought the RF 28-70 and had the EF 24-70 2.8L ii keep them both? Any regrets either not keeping them both if you sold the 24-70 and are you happy with the RF 28-70?

The 28-70 is incomparable.

For its list price of $3100, it's saved me from buying $9,450 worth of fast prime lenses (Canon MSRP).

• RF 85mm f/1.2 (non-DS, although I'd probably buy the DS, +$300)
• RF 50mm f/1.2
• EF 35mm f/1.4 II
• EF 28mm f/1.4 (Sigma)
• EF 24mm f/1.4 II

Plus it saves me another $2400 if I were to add in the RF 24-70 f/2.8L (which I'd also need alongside those primes).

Seriously. I had the Joneses HARD for the RF 50mm f/1.2 and RF 85mm f/1.2 (and also had the need for excellent high-speed wide angle lenses too). I was all prepared to buy them, and more!

Then the RF 28-70 hit my radar, and the rest was history. I have no desire to buy any of those primes (or RF 24-70 f/2.8) any longer.

I shoot a lot of events and sports, and this baby just nails it. The zoom range is right on, the AF is fast and sure, the rendition is as heavenly as any other premium L. The DOF isn’t as shallow of course, but that can actually be a detriment for this kind of shooting. If I want max DOF control, I have my Siggy 135mm f/1.8 anyways, and RF 70-200 f/2.8 for longer stuff (plus the sweet RF 15-35 f/2.8 for the U/W range).

IMHO the only real down-side of the 28-70 might be its size. I don’t mind it for event or sports or portrait shooting, but I wouldn’t want to carry it while just walking about, or for travel. YMMV!

R2

The strong trait of the 28-70 is that it has a very distinct, "character-filled" optical signature, adding to its technical quality.

I simply love it and find myself quite often just picking up the camera, snapping this lens on and going for a "photographic stroll", just because.

This said, I don't think it replaces RF 1.2L primes.

I also have the 85 f/1.2 and never had an instance where the two conflicted in my mind as to which I should use to do what.

It is true one can think of the 28-70 as an apt replacement for multiple primes, given the superb optical quality of this RF zoom gem.

But f/2 primes, not f/1.2 ones.

PK

It all depends on usage.  Yours is simply different than mine.  Like I’ve mentioned before, if I still shot a lot of portraits and weddings I’d definitely want the f/1.2 primes in addition to the zoom (they’re truly awesome).  But I don’t do much of that any more, and instead I have the outstanding Sigma 135mm f/1.8 to fit that need.

Shooting events though, I find the big zoom to be indispensable, and the fast primes are the ones that are in fact dispensable (IME).  Especially since I’m using such an outstanding RAW image processor.

R2

R2D2 wrote:

PhotoKhan wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

cpharm86 wrote:

There hasn’t been a lot of discussions on the RF 28-70 lately with all the new stuff from Canon surfacing.

About a year ago I went to my local camera store and tested the RF-28-70. One of the reasons I didn’t buy it was for the size and weight compared to my EF 24-70 2.8L ii. (of course price was a consideration also)

Well, I am back to the RF 28-70 consideration again. I don’t think I want to keep the 24-70 if I purchase the 28-70.

Has anyone that bought the RF 28-70 and had the EF 24-70 2.8L ii keep them both? Any regrets either not keeping them both if you sold the 24-70 and are you happy with the RF 28-70?

The 28-70 is incomparable.

For its list price of $3100, it's saved me from buying $9,450 worth of fast prime lenses (Canon MSRP).

• RF 85mm f/1.2 (non-DS, although I'd probably buy the DS, +$300)
• RF 50mm f/1.2
• EF 35mm f/1.4 II
• EF 28mm f/1.4 (Sigma)
• EF 24mm f/1.4 II

Plus it saves me another $2400 if I were to add in the RF 24-70 f/2.8L (which I'd also need alongside those primes).

Seriously. I had the Joneses HARD for the RF 50mm f/1.2 and RF 85mm f/1.2 (and also had the need for excellent high-speed wide angle lenses too). I was all prepared to buy them, and more!

Then the RF 28-70 hit my radar, and the rest was history. I have no desire to buy any of those primes (or RF 24-70 f/2.8) any longer.

I shoot a lot of events and sports, and this baby just nails it. The zoom range is right on, the AF is fast and sure, the rendition is as heavenly as any other premium L. The DOF isn’t as shallow of course, but that can actually be a detriment for this kind of shooting. If I want max DOF control, I have my Siggy 135mm f/1.8 anyways, and RF 70-200 f/2.8 for longer stuff (plus the sweet RF 15-35 f/2.8 for the U/W range).

IMHO the only real down-side of the 28-70 might be its size. I don’t mind it for event or sports or portrait shooting, but I wouldn’t want to carry it while just walking about, or for travel. YMMV!

R2

The strong trait of the 28-70 is that it has a very distinct, "character-filled" optical signature, adding to its technical quality.

I simply love it and find myself quite often just picking up the camera, snapping this lens on and going for a "photographic stroll", just because.

This said, I don't think it replaces RF 1.2L primes.

I also have the 85 f/1.2 and never had an instance where the two conflicted in my mind as to which I should use to do what.

It is true one can think of the 28-70 as an apt replacement for multiple primes, given the superb optical quality of this RF zoom gem.

But f/2 primes, not f/1.2 ones.

PK

It all depends on usage. Yours is simply different than mine. Like I’ve mentioned before, if I still shot a lot of portraits and weddings I’d definitely want the f/1.2 primes in addition to the zoom (they’re truly awesome). But I don’t do much of that any more, and instead I have the outstanding Sigma 135mm f/1.8 to fit that need.

Shooting events though, I find the big zoom to be indispensable, and the fast primes are the ones that are in fact dispensable (IME). Especially since I’m using such an outstanding RAW image processor.

R2

yep, pj pop, pop, pop with the great zoom never missing a moment with great framing on the fly - clients don't notice the difference between f2 and f1,2 - and a stop difference isn't a big deal with dxo

what they might notice is missing shots changing to prime lenses or poor framing with primes because subjects are on the move - and I hate one eye in focus and one eye out of focus of too shallow dof

paratom wrote:

For compact and fast lenses I use Leica, but I still hope some "in between"high quality f1.4-1.8 lenses from Canon RF.

A max 800g RF 85mm f/1.4 ÜUSM around 2000 euro for me please.

R2D2 wrote:

cpharm86 wrote:

There hasn’t been a lot of discussions on the RF 28-70 lately with all the new stuff from Canon surfacing.

About a year ago I went to my local camera store and tested the RF-28-70. One of the reasons I didn’t buy it was for the size and weight compared to my EF 24-70 2.8L ii. (of course price was a consideration also)

Well, I am back to the RF 28-70 consideration again. I don’t think I want to keep the 24-70 if I purchase the 28-70.

Has anyone that bought the RF 28-70 and had the EF 24-70 2.8L ii keep them both? Any regrets either not keeping them both if you sold the 24-70 and are you happy with the RF 28-70?

The 28-70 is incomparable.

For its list price of $3100, it's saved me from buying $9,450 worth of fast prime lenses (Canon MSRP).

• RF 85mm f/1.2 (non-DS, although I'd probably buy the DS, +$300)
• RF 50mm f/1.2
• EF 35mm f/1.4 II
• EF 28mm f/1.4 (Sigma)
• EF 24mm f/1.4 II

Plus it saves me another $2400 if I were to add in the RF 24-70 f/2.8L (which I'd also need alongside those primes).

We can say you have the 24-70 2.8 "inside the 28-70 f2 (except the 24-28mm range), but the 28-70 is NOT equal to all these lenses.  We can't say this at all. But the 28-70 is more versatile of course

Patlezinc wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

cpharm86 wrote:

There hasn’t been a lot of discussions on the RF 28-70 lately with all the new stuff from Canon surfacing.

About a year ago I went to my local camera store and tested the RF-28-70. One of the reasons I didn’t buy it was for the size and weight compared to my EF 24-70 2.8L ii. (of course price was a consideration also)

Well, I am back to the RF 28-70 consideration again. I don’t think I want to keep the 24-70 if I purchase the 28-70.

Has anyone that bought the RF 28-70 and had the EF 24-70 2.8L ii keep them both? Any regrets either not keeping them both if you sold the 24-70 and are you happy with the RF 28-70?

The 28-70 is incomparable.

For its list price of $3100, it's saved me from buying $9,450 worth of fast prime lenses (Canon MSRP).

• RF 85mm f/1.2 (non-DS, although I'd probably buy the DS, +$300)
• RF 50mm f/1.2
• EF 35mm f/1.4 II
• EF 28mm f/1.4 (Sigma)
• EF 24mm f/1.4 II

Plus it saves me another $2400 if I were to add in the RF 24-70 f/2.8L (which I'd also need alongside those primes).

We can say you have the 24-70 2.8 "inside the 28-70 f2 (except the 24-28mm range)

I don’t really look at lenses from their specced focal length in mm. Instead I choose lenses based on their capabilities. There’s a subtle difference there. Too often I see (beginners especially) just trying to fill the focal length range without regard for exactly what and how they’ll be shooting, and what their output requirements are. This can be a costly mistake in more ways than one.

but the 28-70 is NOT equal to all these lenses. We can't say this at all. But the 28-70 is more versatile of course

Agree, not equal, but its versatility has indeed saved ME from buying ANY of those lenses. Seriously.

YMMV (which I suspect to be the case). But that’s alright of course.

R2