# Canon RF 28-70 f/2L and what else?



## Ozarker (Jul 13, 2019)

I'm thinking the RF 28-70 f/2L is going to be a must have for me. I am curious as to what the longer zoom will be. Will it also be f/2? Something like a 70-135? I guess I'll just have to wait and see. I can see myself very happy with just two zooms, though the RF 85mm f/1.2L and RF 50 f/1.2L would be awfully tempting. I'd have to have the zooms first though. Wider than 28mm isn't a worry for me. Still have my EF 24-70 f/2.8L II should I need a wider angle. Already missing my EF 35mm f/1.4L II though.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 14, 2019)

Hyper GAS?


----------



## Quirkz (Jul 14, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I'm thinking the RF 28-70 f/2L is going to be a must have for me. I am curious as to what the longer zoom will be. Will it also be f/2? Something like a 70-135? I guess I'll just have to wait and see. I can see myself very happy with just two zooms, though the RF 85mm f/1.2L and RF 50 f/1.2L would be awfully tempting. I'd have to have the zooms first though. Wider than 28mm isn't a worry for me. Still have my EF 24-70 f/2.8L II should I need a wider angle. Already missing my EF 35mm f/1.4L II though.



I’m not selling my 35 II till canon do a version for the R. The rf35 1.8 is wonderful for the price and size, but doesn’t quite have that magic


----------



## Quirkz (Jul 14, 2019)

The 24-105 honestly surprised me with how good it is. Maybe you’re wanting something with a larger aperture, but if not, check it out.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 14, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I'm thinking the RF 28-70 f/2L is going to be a must have for me. I am curious as to what the longer zoom will be. Will it also be f/2? Something like a 70-135? I guess I'll just have to wait and see. I can see myself very happy with just two zooms, though the RF 85mm f/1.2L and RF 50 f/1.2L would be awfully tempting. I'd have to have the zooms first though. Wider than 28mm isn't a worry for me. Still have my EF 24-70 f/2.8L II should I need a wider angle. Already missing my EF 35mm f/1.4L II though.


unless you are frequently run and gun in poorly lit venues with a no flash allowed policy in place, you would be just fine with 24-70 / 2.8 glass.
if you can afford to take a breather while you are changing your glass, you would be even better served with a pair of nice and bright primes in your bag: say, 35/.1.4 + 85/1.4
please note: 28-70/2.0 is not a spectacular lens wide open at the wide end. far from it. your Canon 35/1.4 II stopped down to F2.0 will be running circles around the zoom lens.


----------



## Larsskv (Jul 14, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> please note: 28-70/2.0 is not a spectacular lens wide open at the wide end. far from it. your Canon 35/1.4 II stopped down to F2.0 will be running circles around the zoom lens.


Just out of curiosity, are you speaking from your own experience?


----------



## Viggo (Jul 14, 2019)

Here’s a comparison at 35 both at f2

Comparison


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 14, 2019)

Larsskv said:


> Just out of curiosity, are you speaking from your own experience?


nope, there are quite a few reviewers noted sharpness wide open.. TDP though was of an alternative opinion however their own image samples suggest otherwise. see lens image quality section on TDP website.

here is link to a review:

https://www.slrlounge.com/canon-rf-28-70-2-0l-a-hands-on-review/

"... I wasn’t that impressed, however, with the sharpness of this lens at f/2.0. While it’s sharp enough to create usable images, pixel peepers will likely find the results a bit softer than expected. Perhaps I’m asking too much from a f/2.0 wide-mid zoom lens, but while the RF 50 1.2 is incredibly sharp at f/1.2, this $3000 lens is just sharp enough at f/2.0. It’s very sharp at f/2.8, though, and extremely sharp as you close down..."


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 14, 2019)

Viggo said:


> Here’s a comparison at 35 both at f2
> 
> Comparison



Thanks, Viggo. I am not too fast selling my Canon 35/1.4 II anytime soon.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 14, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> unless you are frequently run and gun in poorly lit venues with a no flash allowed policy in place, you would be just fine with 24-70 / 2.8 glass.
> if you can afford to take a breather while you are changing your glass, you would be even better served with a pair of nice and bright primes in your bag: say, 35/.1.4 + 85/1.4
> please note: 28-70/2.0 is not a spectacular lens wide open at the wide end. far from it. your Canon 35/1.4 II stopped down to F2.0 will be running circles around the zoom lens.


Loved my 35mm f/1.4 II but sold it to help finance an R. Miss that lens already.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 14, 2019)

Quirkz said:


> The 24-105 honestly surprised me with how good it is. Maybe you’re wanting something with a larger aperture, but if not, check it out.


Got that lens as a kit with an R last night. Should be here by the middle of the week. Couldn't pass up the $500 instant rebate and an automotive photographer (LSX?) sold me on that focal length through the great photos he took with it.


----------



## Quirkz (Jul 14, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Got that lens as a kit with an R last night. Should be here by the middle of the week. Couldn't pass up the $500 instant rebate and an automotive photographer (LSX?) sold me on that focal length through the great photos he took with it.



I was sold by those same shots too.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 14, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Got that lens as a kit with an R last night. Should be here by the middle of the week. Couldn't pass up the $500 instant rebate and an automotive photographer (LSX?) sold me on that focal length through the great photos he took with it.


I missed the deal with the rebate AND the free EF adapter. I was so eager for the 50mm I almost went for it, but now back to holding out for a body with better specs and ergonomics.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jul 15, 2019)

I think the question of what the longer f2 zoom will be is a very good question. My guess is 70-135 would just be too small a range to make it worthwhile. And a 70-200 would be way too big to be practical. So I(and I would think many others) am guessing a 70-150. Although I am usually wrong when making predictions.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 15, 2019)

Aussie shooter said:


> I think the question of what the longer f2 zoom will be is a very good question. My guess is 70-135 would just be too small a range to make it worthwhile. And a 70-200 would be way too big to be practical. So I(and I would think many others) am guessing a 70-150. Although I am usually wrong when making predictions.


I could live with 150mm, but what if it turns out to be an f/1.8? Hmmmm.... Seriously though, 70-135 f/2 works for me. Especially if the bokeh is as good as my 135mm f/2 prime.


----------



## 3serious (Aug 5, 2019)

If they release a 70-135 F/2 to go along with my 28-70 F/2, I will never need another lens and will die happy.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 5, 2019)

3serious said:


> If they release a 70-135 F/2 to go along with my 28-70 F/2, I will never need another lens and will die happy.


Now that’s some famous last words


----------



## 3serious (Aug 5, 2019)

Viggo said:


> Now that’s some famous last words


No pressure, Canon!


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 1, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> unless you are frequently run and gun in poorly lit venues with a no flash allowed policy in place, you would be just fine with 24-70 / 2.8 glass.
> if you can afford to take a breather while you are changing your glass, you would be even better served with a pair of nice and bright primes in your bag: say, 35/.1.4 + 85/1.4
> please note: 28-70/2.0 is not a spectacular lens wide open at the wide end. far from it. your Canon 35/1.4 II stopped down to F2.0 will be running circles around the zoom lens.


While this is true, the 35mm isn't nearly as versatile. I get very good images from the f/2 wide open and it will be used outdoors nearly all the time, sometimes in natural light and sometimes with flash. It is very rare for me to shoot wider than 50mm. 99% of the time I'm shooting portraits and fashion. Older women, especially at close distance, do not appreciate ultra sharp images.  Yes, I know I can soften things in post if I need to with the texture or clarity sliders, but that isn't an ideal solution for me. The RF 28-70mm covers 35mm and 50mm for me and even gives me a very acceptable portrait focal length at 70mm. My RF 85mm can handle all my indoor work, and it is unbelievably sharp even at f/1.2. Right now I am waiting to see what is going to be offered in a fast zoom (Hopefully a 70-135 f/2), but that will be a long wait. If a prime 135mm f/2 or faster is offered first, that will be all I need and I'll probably forget all about the longer zoom. I'll attach three photos. The first with the EF 35mm f/1.4L II wide open with a young girl who has perfect skin, and then the RF 28-70mm f/2L at 70mm wide open with a model who is in her late 20's. The 35mm is awesomely sharp. I'd have kept it, but needed to sell to begin the switch switch over to RF lenses. I may still also get the RF 50mm f/1.2L one of these days (after getting a longer prime or zoom, but for now the 28-70 is very good). The color photo is also from the 28-70 wide open, I had to selectively soften so few small areas because of makeup caking. I also softened her nose ring which was razor sharp just because it was a quick edit and is a casualty of the softening around her nose due to makeup caking. So I cannot see enough of an advantage for keeping the 35 except for it being faster. The color photo is also a huge crop from a nearly half body shot with lots of space above her head.


----------



## Act444 (Sep 1, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I get very good images from the f/2 wide open and it will be used outdoors nearly all the time, sometimes in natural light and sometimes with flash.



Question: I don't know if you are referring to on- or off-camera flash, but I was wondering about the massive barrel of the 28-70 obscuring the on-camera flash and casting a shadow (particularly close-up at 70mm). Can you comment on this? I already had issues with the EF 24-70 doing this with the hood attached (when removed, seems to be clear).


----------



## Viggo (Sep 1, 2019)

Act444 said:


> Question: I don't know if you are referring to on- or off-camera flash, but I was wondering about the massive barrel of the 28-70 obscuring the on-camera flash and casting a shadow (particularly close-up at 70mm). Can you comment on this? I already had issues with the EF 24-70 doing this with the hood attached (when removed, seems to be clear).


There is no on camera flash, if you mean one that goes in the hot shoe just tilt it a bit and remove lens hood.


----------



## Act444 (Sep 2, 2019)

Viggo said:


> There is no on camera flash, if you mean one that goes in the hot shoe just tilt it a bit and remove lens hood.



sorry, that's what I meant. "On-Camera Flash" = Flash mounted onto hot shoe.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 2, 2019)

Act444 said:


> Question: I don't know if you are referring to on- or off-camera flash, but I was wondering about the massive barrel of the 28-70 obscuring the on-camera flash and casting a shadow (particularly close-up at 70mm). Can you comment on this? I already had issues with the EF 24-70 doing this with the hood attached (when removed, seems to be clear).


I always use off camera flash and always in manual. I wouldn't know. Sorry.


----------



## richperson (Sep 13, 2019)

Act444 said:


> sorry, that's what I meant. "On-Camera Flash" = Flash mounted onto hot shoe.



You would want to bounce it if you are shooting anywhere near 28mm. I really don't use flash much with this lens, since it is such a light canon, but I did do some shots with it of a still subject that required a flash and you do see the shadow if not bounced.


----------

