# Is the RF 28-70 f2 trying to be too many things at once?



## Kit Lens Jockey (Nov 13, 2018)

Let me say right up front that I think it's great that Canon is already trying to push the boundaries of what's capable with the RF lens mount. The fact that anything as crazy as a full frame 28-70 f2 exists at all is great, and I hope Canon keeps pushing.

But honestly, from the standpoint of "would I actually buy this," I'm having trouble getting excited about this lens. It's massively big and heavy, and massively expensive. And for all of that, what do you really get? It's not quite as fast as a prime (not even close to the fastest L primes), and it doesn't have quite the wide angle capabilities of a 24-70. I feel like it's a lens that's painted itself into a corner by trying to be everything all at once. And as a result it doesn't really give you the speed you'd expect from a prime, or the focal length range you'd expect from a zoom.

Maybe it's just the way I shoot, but I never really expect one lens to do everything for me. If I want speed and a nice shallow DOF, I'll use a prime. If I want the versatility of a zoom, I'll use that. A 24-70 2.8 is, to me, limited enough in its zoom range without losing another 4mm in the wide end. So honestly, while technically I'm sure it will be a great lens, it doesn't really seem to excel at having a large zoom range or a very fast aperture, which makes me wonder if it would ever be worth dropping $3000 on.


----------



## eyeheartny (Nov 13, 2018)

Could not disagree more. When I look at my LR library over 15+ years of shooting, most of _*my personal favorite images*_ are in the length covered by that lens. This is why we're just in the realm of opinions here. This isn't right for you. For me, it makes a ton of sense and I preordered the first night it was available at B&H. 

A few specific thoughts, though: it's funny to suggest that 24mm is substantially different than 28mm. This image (not mine, found it by searching) compares the 24mm and 28mm coverage. It's not nothing, but it's not a game changer, and it made me laugh that you say 24-70 is significantly different in capability than 28-70. In this sample image, I'd argue that the 28mm offers a better crop of this mage with less dead space. The leading line created by the pathway moves the viewer's eye really nicely through the 24mm crop, but at 28mm that leading line peters out with about 15% of the image above it. I also think the houses end up placed more pleasingly to the eye in the 24mm crop. This is, of course, personal preference. 








While your critiques of the speed are broadly sound in that they are not unreasonable, in many cases f2.0 is very, very workable in a lot of lighting conditions. Is it slower than the RF 50 1.2 I have? Undoubtedly. Does having a zoom range make this a great travel/general-purpose lens? YES, and that's why I bought it. The speed is enough to enable shooting in a wide range of conditions, and while the lens is big and heavy, I'm a big guy (6'2", 215lbs) and having a high-performance f2.0 zoom is enough that I can travel with one lens. I'm on the road a lot for work and taking my camera to parties, dinners, walking around, etc and this is a great option for a lens that serves those needs with really solid performance characteristics. I have a good friend who's a pro shooter, and her 24-70 is her most used lens. A full extra stop of light is substantial for her, coupled with the high performance of the RF mount lenses. 

Also, it's _hilarious_ that you're complaining that the fastest constant-aperture zoom lens ever released isn't fast enough. Nothing's ever good enough, eh?


----------



## docsmith (Nov 13, 2018)

Nothing is for everyone....but the 28-70 f/2 is going to be for a lot of people.

I expect to see it at weddings and eventually, in my own bag.


----------



## Act444 (Nov 14, 2018)

Here's the thing, though: Imagine the potential of a lens like this - mounted on a body with IBIS.  Ditto for the 50 1.2.

Make it happen Canon! Unleash the full potential of the RF mount, with all the benefits of MILC.



eyeheartny said:


> While your critiques of the speed are broadly sound in that they are not unreasonable, in many cases f2.0 is very, very workable in a lot of lighting conditions. Is it slower than the RF 50 1.2 I have? Undoubtedly. Does having a zoom range make this a great travel/general-purpose lens? YES, and that's why I bought it. The speed is enough to enable shooting in a wide range of conditions, and while the lens is big and heavy, I'm a big guy (6'2", 215lbs) and having a high-performance f2.0 zoom is enough that I can travel with one lens. I'm on the road a lot for work and taking my camera to parties, dinners, walking around, etc and this is a great option for a lens that serves those needs with really solid performance characteristics. I have a good friend who's a pro shooter, and her 24-70 is her most used lens. A full extra stop of light is substantial for her, coupled with the high performance of the RF mount lenses.



The way things are now, I think I'd rather have a stabilized 24-70 2.8 for this use to be honest. The extra 4mm on the wide end will be a big deal especially when sightseeing.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 14, 2018)

Ummmmmm.........

Isn’t there already a 24-70F2.8 and a 24-70F4 out there that you use with your “R” ? And don’t most serious Canon shooters already have one? I see no problem with offering something different


----------



## jd7 (Nov 14, 2018)

I do get where Kit Lens Jockey is coming from, but (of course) it comes down to what you shoot and personal preferences. For myself, I don't imagine using the 28-70/2L as a travel / general walk-around lens given its size and weight (and the fact it's a little less wide at the wide end), and for portraits and low light shots in those focal lengths I think I'd still be looking for a f/1.4 (or f/1.2) prime. So, I don't think the set of compromises in the 28-70/2L suit me (bearing in mind all lenses involve a set of compromises). That said, for anyone shooting weddings/events, I can absolutely see why the 28-70/2L may be a great thing for them, bearing in mind the focal lengths it covers at f/2 without having to change lenses.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 14, 2018)

jd7 said:


> I do get where Kit Lens Jockey is coming from, but (of course) it comes down to what you shoot and personal preferences. For myself, I don't imagine using the 28-70/2L as a travel / general walk-around lens given its size and weight (and the fact it's a little less wide at the wide end), and for portraits and low light shots in those focal lengths I think I'd still be looking for a f/1.4 (or f/1.2) prime. So, I don't think the set of compromises in the 28-70/2L suit me (bearing in mind all lenses involve a set of compromises). That said, for anyone shooting weddings/events, I can absolutely see why the 28-70/2L may be a great thing for them, bearing in mind the focal lengths it covers at f/2 without having to change lenses.


I agree. For walking around, give me a 24-70F4, but if I am shooting a wedding in a poorly lit church, F2 is awful tempting.....


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 14, 2018)

eyeheartny said:


> Could not disagree more. When I look at my LR library over 15+ years of shooting, most of _*my personal favorite images*_ are in the length covered by that lens. This is why we're just in the realm of opinions here. This isn't right for you. For me, it makes a ton of sense and I preordered the first night it was available at B&H.
> 
> A few specific thoughts, though: it's funny to suggest that 24mm is substantially different than 28mm. This image (not mine, found it by searching) compares the 24mm and 28mm coverage. It's not nothing, but it's not a game changer, and it made me laugh that you say 24-70 is significantly different in capability than 28-70. In this sample image, I'd argue that the 28mm offers a better crop of this mage with less dead space. The leading line created by the pathway moves the viewer's eye really nicely through the 24mm crop, but at 28mm that leading line peters out with about 15% of the image above it. I also think the houses end up placed more pleasingly to the eye in the 24mm crop. This is, of course, personal preference.
> 
> ...


I could't agree more!
I'm saving for it (and the 1,2/50)...


----------



## Viggo (Nov 14, 2018)

I noticed you said the 24-70 is already limited in it’s zoom range. It sounds like you use a standard zoom to “get closer” which is not it’s purpose at all.


----------



## tron (Nov 14, 2018)

eyeheartny said:


> Could not disagree more. When I look at my LR library over 15+ years of shooting, most of _*my personal favorite images*_ are in the length covered by that lens. This is why we're just in the realm of opinions here. This isn't right for you. For me, it makes a ton of sense and I preordered the first night it was available at B&H.
> 
> A few specific thoughts, though: it's funny to suggest that 24mm is substantially different than 28mm. This image (not mine, found it by searching) compares the 24mm and 28mm coverage. It's not nothing, but it's not a game changer, and it made me laugh that you say 24-70 is significantly different in capability than 28-70. In this sample image, I'd argue that the 28mm offers a better crop of this mage with less dead space. The leading line created by the pathway moves the viewer's eye really nicely through the 24mm crop, but at 28mm that leading line peters out with about 15% of the image above it. I also think the houses end up placed more pleasingly to the eye in the 24mm crop. This is, of course, personal preference.
> 
> ...


It is also hilarious to make comparisons using a single image.

1st. You mentioned your personal preferences regarding the 28mm framing in this image (although it cropped a house a little to the left and if you were to reframe it would probably crop something to the upper right).
2nd. 24-70 zooms can be set to 28mm too if necessary (or anything in between 24 and 28) so this cancels the argument in favor of 28.
3rd. If I were to use (wrongly) this single example I would say that as a landscape it certainly didn't need f/2.0 by the way! I know of course this is illogical since f/2.0 is a choice but the same applies to 28mm for the 24-70 zoom.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Nov 14, 2018)

eyeheartny said:


> A few specific thoughts, though: it's funny to suggest that 24mm is substantially different than 28mm. This image (not mine, found it by searching) compares the 24mm and 28mm coverage. It's not nothing, but it's not a game changer, and it made me laugh that you say 24-70 is significantly different in capability than 28-70. In this sample image, I'd argue that the 28mm offers a better crop of this mage with less dead space. The leading line created by the pathway moves the viewer's eye really nicely through the 24mm crop, but at 28mm that leading line peters out with about 15% of the image above it. I also think the houses end up placed more pleasingly to the eye in the 24mm crop. This is, of course, personal preference.


It's kind of absurd to argue the merits of one focal length vs. another solely based on how one specific image looks at both focal lengths. And you started out by arguing that the two focal lengths were not substantially different from each other, but then went on to say how different the photo looked taken at 24mm vs 28mm. So, I'm not sure what you're really trying to say here.




eyeheartny said:


> While your critiques of the speed are broadly sound in that they are not unreasonable, in many cases f2.0 is very, very workable in a lot of lighting conditions.


I guess that ultimately if I'm going to be doing anything at night and/or in poor lighting conditions, I want something that can go to at least f1.4. An f2 zoom is great, but not so much once you start thinking about how a fast prime can still give you about two stops more light gathering ability than that.

I love fast lenses, so a 28-70 f2 is pretty cool to me. I think it is possible that I might own one someday if I can find a deal on one used. But when I think about how I would really use it in real life, I can't really find a good place for it. If I'm somewhere with poor light, I want the ability to go all the way to f1.2. If it's during the day and I'm traveling or something like that, then I'll give up the low light ability in favor of the versatility of a zoom. This lens just kind of wedges itself between those two, and I'm not sure it's for the better.



eyeheartny said:


> Also, it's _hilarious_ that you're complaining that the fastest constant-aperture zoom lens ever released isn't fast enough. Nothing's ever good enough, eh?


Well no, I'm not going to say that an f2 lens is fast enough for me when there are any number of f1.2 lenses that I could use instead. Zoom or not, it's just not that fast of a lens in the grand scheme of things. For a zoom, yes it is, but that doesn't make the fact that some primes can pull in much more light any less relevant.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Nov 14, 2018)

Viggo said:


> I noticed you said the 24-70 is already limited in it’s zoom range. It sounds like you use a standard zoom to “get closer” which is not it’s purpose at all.


Well, it has to be its purpose in situations where you physically can't get any closer or further away from what you're taking a photo of. Yes, you can use a zoom range to give the photo different levels of compression. But sometimes, ultimately, you're either trying to take a photo of something far away that you can't get any closer to, or you're in a tight interior space trying to get more of the scene in, so how wide of a zoom range you have determines how well you'll be able to capture the scene.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Nov 14, 2018)

Act444 said:


> Here's the thing, though: Imagine the potential of a lens like this - mounted on a body with IBIS.  Ditto for the 50 1.2.


Yeah it would be great in some situations where you're taking a landscape photo or something else that's still. But for any sort of a dynamic thing you're trying to take a photo of, IBIS does no good, and it all comes down to how much light you can pull in through the lens.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 14, 2018)

eyeheartny said:


> A few specific thoughts, though: it's funny to suggest that 24mm is substantially different than 28mm. This image (not mine, found it by searching) compares the 24mm and 28mm coverage. It's not nothing, but it's not a game changer, and it made me laugh that you say 24-70 is significantly different in capability than 28-70. In this sample image, I'd argue that the 28mm offers a better crop of this mage with less dead space. The leading line created by the pathway moves the viewer's eye really nicely through the 24mm crop, but at 28mm that leading line peters out with about 15% of the image above it. I also think the houses end up placed more pleasingly to the eye in the 24mm crop. This is, of course, personal preference.



That is a very disingenuous image to illustrate a point, it is a completely foreign perspective for a wide angle lens and it wasn't shot with a 28mm lens anyway, so truly is dishonest. All they have done is taken an image shot with, what looks like a 200mm lens or above, said this is a 24mm perspective and cropped it to a 28mm perspective by area, it is not showing the actual angle of view or perspective you'd get from either lens let alone an honest comparison.

Up close and personal there is a massive difference between 24mm and 28mm, try shooting reception table shots, environmental portraits in tight spaces etc etc, there is a very good reason all blue ribbon mid length zooms have settled on 24-70, the MkII 28-70 R will be a 24-70 if history is any indicator.


----------



## eyeheartny (Nov 14, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> so truly is dishonest.



This is a bizarre thing to say. Dishonest? It's an accurate reflection of the field of view of 24mm vs 28mm. There's nothing dishonest about that. If you don't think it is the _best representation_ of the differences, that's fair. But dishonest? Give me a freakin' break.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 14, 2018)

I use my 24-70 f/2.8 in low light at events. I seldom use 24 mm, but do zoom to 28mm. A extra stop would be valuable, but the price for that stop is high. Another factor is the amount of distortions toward the edges when taking photos of a large group of people where those at the edge need to be clearly viewed. I can definitely see that it would pay for itself for some users, but not for me.

I used to use primes, changing lenses from 24, 35, 50, 85, and 135 mm while in the dark was a real challenge, and I did have a table where I was able to sit them. When the 24-70 II and the 70-200II came out, I bought them and the primes found no use. Even so, the additional noise at f/2.8 forces a pretty high ISO setting.

I now have two FF bodies, one for each zoom, and I'd be happy to have the RF if It did not cost so much. The other factor, of course is that a EF lens can be moved back and forth from my R to my 5D MK IV which is worth a lot.

As others have said, its a special purpose lens. Canon does not expect to sell many of them, so a lot of it is PR.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 14, 2018)

eyeheartny said:


> This is a bizarre thing to say. Dishonest? It's an accurate reflection of the field of view of 24mm vs 28mm. There's nothing dishonest about that. If you don't think it is the _best representation_ of the differences, that's fair. But dishonest? Give me a freakin' break.


No I won't give you a break and no it isn't an accurate representation of the field of view of either focal length. If it had been taken with a 24mm lens then it might be fair, it wasn't so it doesn't have the fov of a 28 or 24mm lens. 

You can't just crop any image and say 'this is what a 'x' focal length would look like unless you take it with the widest focal length and then crop in, that isn't what was done here so it isn't accurate. If it isn't accurate it is dishonest.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 14, 2018)

eyeheartny said:


> "give me a break" means you're being stupid. it means that comment is idiotic. good luck to you.


I might be idiotic but I am not wrong.

Here are two examples of a 24 vs 28, in the chairs shot, mimicking a reception table shoot, I get at least two more people in the frame at the same average shooting distance. That can be the difference between getting everybody in and needing to change to a wider lens.


----------



## eyeheartny (Nov 14, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> I might be idiotic but I am not wrong.
> 
> Here are two examples of a 24 vs 28, in the chairs shot, mimicking a reception table shoot, I get at least two more people in the frame at the same average shooting distance. That can be the difference between getting everybody in and needing to change to a wider lens.



Fine. But you'll get distorted faces on the edges of the 24, and unflattering facial features, but whatever works for you.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 14, 2018)

Here is what your 'example' should have done.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 14, 2018)

Here is what your 'example' actually did. It was actually shot with a longer focal length but was said to be a 24 mm with a 28mm crop in it. As you can see it is a rediculous and dishonest comparison when the widest focal length isn’t used as the base shot. This was actually shot with a 100mm focal length from the same place as the previous two images with the truck to frame left.


----------



## padam (Dec 3, 2018)

Sample images can be found here, it is insanely sharp for an f/2 zoom lens. Seems like they weren't lying, when they said it can replace a set of primes. Just needs a camera that measures up to it...


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Dec 5, 2018)

Looks great, but at about 1.5 stops slower than the fastest L primes, nope, not going to be replacing my set of primes any time soon.


----------



## deleteme (Dec 6, 2018)

This lens a is a statement lens.
It is Canon saying "You want a fast zoom? Here you go".
They know how to make amazing lenses but they also know the limitations of doing so.

They also know the depths of their customers pockets and that the sales will be largely to amateurs with some pros seeing the benefit in their bag.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Dec 7, 2018)

Like I said, I'm glad this lens exists, it's pretty neat. But in the end, if I want fast, I'll use a prime, if I want versatility, I'll use a 24-70 zoom. This compromises in both of those departments. All it really does is saves you a lens change. I feel like a combination of a 24mm and 50mm prime could do most of the things this lens could as long as you don't mind some cropping, and with much faster apertures.


----------



## archiea (Dec 7, 2018)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> Let me say right up front that I think it's great that Canon is already trying to push the boundaries of what's capable with the RF lens mount. The fact that anything as crazy as a full frame 28-70 f2 exists at all is great, and I hope Canon keeps pushing.
> 
> But honestly, from the standpoint of "would I actually buy this," I'm having trouble getting excited about this lens. It's massively big and heavy, and massively expensive. And for all of that, what do you really get? It's not quite as fast as a prime (not even close to the fastest L primes), and it doesn't have quite the wide angle capabilities of a 24-70. I feel like it's a lens that's painted itself into a corner by trying to be everything all at once. And as a result it doesn't really give you the speed you'd expect from a prime, or the focal length range you'd expect from a zoom.
> 
> Maybe it's just the way I shoot, but I never really expect one lens to do everything for me. If I want speed and a nice shallow DOF, I'll use a prime. If I want the versatility of a zoom, I'll use that. A 24-70 2.8 is, to me, limited enough in its zoom range without losing another 4mm in the wide end. So honestly, while technically I'm sure it will be a great lens, it doesn't really seem to excel at having a large zoom range or a very fast aperture, which makes me wonder if it would ever be worth dropping $3000 on.



All Good points. This is why I still keep the Miserable M-series bodies (M-5) because their size is amazing for the IQ you get.. the 11-22, the F2 22mm, real damn curious how the new 35mm is. I keep a Leica M 50mm f1.4 adapted to the Canon EF-M as my 50mm. Its such a small system that used all of my canon gear. That whole kit fits in a tenba BYOB bag in my backpack or in a think tank mirrorless 20 backpack..with circular polarizers and ND filters (Small diameter EF-M lenses). Absolute magic! 

Sounds like canon will come out with a proper RF 24-70, even IS for the Event/wedding market. But this F2 28-70.... I think it has its niche..viable niche... if you do not want to carry primes with you.. you have your 28mm group, 50mm couple and your 70mm portrait lens in one at F2. In that case.. its a really small lens! For engagement shots, even B camera wedding shooters, that just one lens they have to carry! no swapping! For event, stop down to f5.6 to get the group in focus, then at f2 for portraits. All in one lens, no swaps. 

Folks call it a solution looking for problem. This may be the 1 "walk around" lens for the event shooter! 

...just a thought here...


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Dec 7, 2018)

For someone who's willing to make the compromise of only having f2 at their disposal, sure, it's great. But I like shooting at wider apertures than that too much to really be satisfied by this lens. That bugs me more than losing the 4mm on the wide end. If this were a 28-70 f1.4, then sign me up. As it is, I'm not really going crazy over it.


----------



## mclaren777 (Dec 8, 2018)

My RF 28-70mm is sitting next to me and it's truly enormous!

However, I could see it being my most-used lens for 2019.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 8, 2018)

a totally irrelevant show-off lens. i wish they had broughtcan RF 24-85/4.0 IS STM non-L lens at 500 usd/€ instead.


----------



## Markeran (Dec 20, 2018)

eyeheartny said:


> Could not disagree more. When I look at my LR library over 15+ years of shooting, most of _*my personal favorite images*_ are in the length covered by that lens. This is why we're just in the realm of opinions here. This isn't right for you. For me, it makes a ton of sense and I preordered the first night it was available at B&H.
> 
> A few specific thoughts, though: it's funny to suggest that 24mm is substantially different than 28mm. This image (not mine, found it by searching) compares the 24mm and 28mm coverage. It's not nothing, but it's not a game changer, and it made me laugh that you say 24-70 is significantly different in capability than 28-70. In this sample image, I'd argue that the 28mm offers a better crop of this mage with less dead space. The leading line created by the pathway moves the viewer's eye really nicely through the 24mm crop, but at 28mm that leading line peters out with about 15% of the image above it. I also think the houses end up placed more pleasingly to the eye in the 24mm crop. This is, of course, personal preference.
> 
> ...



I agree, ordered one and...can't wait to have it delivered today or tomorrow!


----------



## caMARYnon (Dec 21, 2018)

First Looks at Canon RF 28-70mm f/2L USM Lens Image Quality from TDP. 
It is better on 35mm f4.0 than RF 35f1.8 macro any aperture


----------



## scyrene (Dec 21, 2018)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> Like I said, I'm glad this lens exists, it's pretty neat. But in the end, if I want fast, I'll use a prime, if I want versatility, I'll use a 24-70 zoom. This compromises in both of those departments. All it really does is saves you a lens change. I feel like a combination of a 24mm and 50mm prime could do most of the things this lens could as long as you don't mind some cropping, and with much faster apertures.



Your point about primes holds true for all zoom lenses, so that's hardly a criticism of this lens in particular. They have increased the maximum aperture, so in that regard it's better than what was available before, meaning this criticism is *less* valid than for e.g. f/2.8 zooms. I'm not sure what the point of this thread is tbh, other than you saying this lens doesn't fit your needs *shrug*.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 21, 2018)

caMARYnon said:


> First Looks at Canon RF 28-70mm f/2L USM Lens Image Quality from TDP.
> It is better on 35mm f4.0 than RF 35f1.8 macro any aperture


Well the opposite would have been shocking, it should demolish the 35 f1.8.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Feb 5, 2019)

I suppose that the 28-70 f2L is a kind of marketing stunt lens. One to show the competition what Canon can do if they have the will and the budget. Reading recent artilces from Canon, they suspect that the 35mm market (DSLR and RF) will contract 50% over the next few years. So these new lenses (while Canon still has an R&D budget to play with) will be it for a while. Once all the RF lenses are available, there won't be a lot of development left in the Canon budget going forwards. So they are designing like mad...while they still can.
I haven't yet had a chance to try one of these lenses, and I'd very much like to try one. But...regardless of how good it is...I'm not happy about the £3K UKP price or the need for a £2400 UKP camera body that isn't that great ergonomically. A 5D4 is a far far better camera for a similar price point.


----------

