# How much difference between RF 24-70 2.8 & 28-70 2???



## XL+ (Jun 19, 2020)

As an coming R5 user, I am willed to change my <200mm zooms. The 70-200 IS has been sold, also all EF zooms 2.8 L are gone.
I will definitively get the RF 70-200. With wideangle lenses, I am thinking of not buying an zoom again (there is the EF 16-35 4 L IS still in my pocket) - better 3-4 primes for better IQ. Later on, the RF 85mm and the 50mm RF will follow. Later on, because of pricing...
So, the 24-70mm zoom range is open. And I am not sure, which lens to buy. The RF 27-70 2.8 or RF 28-70 2.0
I do not think, I will notice the 2.8 to 2.0 in case of brightness and bokeh difference. But all tests I read, saw the 2.0 lens 20-25% sharper at >35mm (up to 70mm).
So I wonder If the more weight (I will use the lens as an "always on" at walking and hiking for landscapes) and the €800 plus is worth the money.
Are RF users in the community that can place their practical experience here? (optically and handling)


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 19, 2020)

The IS works great. Slightly sharper, but noticeably more vignette wide open. No adapter to fool with. Faster bursts on EOS R, but don't know if same case on R5. That's all. You decide if the cost is worthwhile. I'd say wait, as the ef version balances well enough on R.

Unless you really want image stabilisation.


----------



## padam (Jun 19, 2020)

Everything is there on the internet regarding the optical quality and look, but only you can decide how well you can get on with the weight.

I think this is very much a personal choice compared to taking advice from other people. All I can say is that the 28-70/2 is quite big and heavy, but it does produce beautiful images and for its size, it focuses fairly quickly and accurately.


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 19, 2020)

When I read "_walking and hiking for landscapes_" and think of the weight of the f/2 (1430 g) vs. the f/2.8 (900g) I'd surely know which lens I'd buy.
If you add the price difference, 4 mm more WA, IS and a better MFD and magnification for closeups of flowers and insects I'd be sold for the f/2.8.
IMO the only three reasons for the f/2 are:

I always want best of the best
I need f/2 because of low light and bokeh
I have too much money
Have fun with your new gear


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 19, 2020)

I must have misread the first time through, which is why I recommending _keeping_ an ef version. If buying new for an R, especially the R5, choice seems pretty clear: Save up and buy the Rf version--UNLESS you plan to keep a dSLR for more serious use.

But that one factor I hope the R5 addresses (but doubt it will!) is the faster burst performance of Rf lenses than Ef when mounted on the R bodies.


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 19, 2020)

Del Paso said:


> No idea whether this is a relevant issue outside rentals, but Lens Rentals have noticed on several EF 24-70 f2,8 the fluorine front lens coating peeling of...
> I've seen it myself on some used lenses too.
> A non-issue if you clean carefully, or simply use filters. But if you don't use a filter, and take motocross pics...
> So...


Should be a warranty issue, shouldn't it?


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 19, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> Should be a warranty issue, shouldn't it?


I misread the post too, also thought of the EF version.Silly me. So I deleted my answer.
As to warranty, it depends on the age of the lens, I guess it happens after a few years...and after the warranty period !


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 19, 2020)

For most use cases, the RF 24-70 f/2.8 IS is better than the RF 28-70 f/2. The RF 24-70 is the best native midrange zoom, and it fills the same role as the EF 24-70. Don't dismiss the weight difference -- you won't want to lug the 28-70 on hikes. The RF 28-70 handles a lot heavier than the RF 24-70 than the weight difference suggest. The RF L primes (50 and 85mm) are all heavy, so it's not often that you'd want to carry primes and the zoom that cover the same focal lengths.

The 28-70 does have its uses. It is a better portrait lens because of the larger aperture, and as you noted, the EF/RF 24-70s are weakest at the long end. It's also better for indoor events because you can get better subject separation and can drop your ISO by half (even when using flash when mixing ambient and light from the flash). For event photographers, the 28-70 may be a better choice, but you can get higher IQ and shallower DOF. Event photographers need to change focal lengths quickly, so they either use multiple cameras and/or zooms, and that is where the RF 28-70 can simplify their work flow.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 20, 2020)

Honestly, I would take the RF 28-70mm f/2L any day for my uses, and the RF 24-105mm f/4L to walk around with. I've had both, and also the RF 50mm f/1.2L. All of them are fantastic. I'm sure the RF 24-70mm f/2.8L is also fantastic.

The RF 28-70mm f/2L is a huge lens and real heavy, but I absolutely loved it. I'll get it again. The RF 50mm too.


----------



## Daan Stam (Jun 20, 2020)

With decisions like these especially because you dont seem to be desperate for cash i would rent them both for a day or two. I havent used either of them sadly (i am a student so no rf system for me yet) but i have heard a lot that the 28-70 f2 is really really heavy so for hiking it is probably best not to buy that beast.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 20, 2020)

I am expecting to sell my MK IV and get the R5, but I'll want the full specs and some reviews to decide for sure.. (I have a R). My EF lenses are fine with my R, so I'd be looking for smaller and lighter lenses for walk around use.


----------



## Larsskv (Jun 20, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> When I read "_walking and hiking for landscapes_" and think of the weight of the f/2 (1430 g) vs. the f/2.8 (900g) I'd surely know which lens I'd buy.
> If you add the price difference, 4 mm more WA, IS and a better MFD and magnification for closeups of flowers and insects I'd be sold for the f/2.8.
> IMO the only three reasons for the f/2 are:
> 
> ...



I agree with you. Almost. The pro reasons for the f2, are also it’s cons. The 50 and 85 L lenses are better (best of the best). They are also even better in low light, and superior with regards to bokeh.


----------



## XL+ (Jun 20, 2020)

daaningrid said:


> With decisions like these especially because you dont seem to be desperate for cash i would rent them both for a day or two. I havent used either of them sadly (i am a student so no rf system for me yet) but i have heard a lot that the 28-70 f2 is really really heavy so for hiking it is probably best not to buy that beast.


The problem is, that no shop in the near rents lenses - and in DACH I do not know an renting company. I tried to fetch one at an Canon event, but it was cancelled due to Corona epidemy.



Larsskv said:


> I agree with you. Almost. The pro reasons for the f2, are also it’s cons. The 50 and 85 L lenses are better (best of the best). They are also even better in low light, and superior with regards to bokeh.


Yes, I know. They seem to be another league, like the Ef versions vs. primes. But then I need 24-35-50-85mm RFs - and this is a lot of money. Later for sure, but for now, the holy trinity zooms will be the maximum I can spend. Just the 2.0 version makes me thinking of selecting this and not the 2.8 version. (Maybe later, i will not optically see the difference, I know. But it looks good .


----------



## XL+ (Jun 21, 2020)

My way, thanks to your replies, will be to get the "holy trinity" and fetch some exquisite primes for my first mirrorless Canon. So, I´m prepared for walking/hiking and the primes will give me the extra on optical performance if needed for portraits and so.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 21, 2020)

XL+ said:


> My way, thanks to your replies, will be to get the "holy trinity" and fetch some exquisite primes for my first mirrorless Canon. So, I´m prepared for walking/hiking and the primes will give me the extra on optical performance if needed for portraits and so.


Do you have someone to carry them for you. They are really heavy. You seldom need faster than f/8 for landscapes. 

I read a story in a book I have about a local photographer who photographed the timber industry in the early 1900's. The used glass plates, made their own emulsions, and carried them along with a large heavy camera to the shooting location. Western Washington is full of steep hills, rivers, streams and brush. They rode a logging train as far as possible, then had to ride mules or walk. The photographer usually hired a local boy to carry his gear. The same boy never worked for him again after packing 130 pounds of 11 X 14 glass plated 20 miles up a mountain. Even by todays standards, some of his photos are wonderful. Hundreds of his glass plates somehow survived all these years, and he was so careful and precise that the emulsions lasted.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 21, 2020)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Do you have someone to carry them for you. They are really heavy. You seldom need faster than f/8 for landscapes.
> 
> I read a story in a book I have about a local photographer who photographed the timber industry in the early 1900's. The used glass plates, made their own emulsions, and carried them along with a large heavy camera to the shooting location. Western Washington is full of steep hills, rivers, streams and brush. They rode a logging train as far as possible, then had to ride mules or walk. The photographer usually hired a local boy to carry his gear. The same boy never worked for him again after packing 130 pounds of 11 X 14 glass plated 20 miles up a mountain. Even by todays standards, some of his photos are wonderful. Hundreds of his glass plates somehow survived all these years, and he was so careful and precise that the emulsions lasted.



Hey, you have a link to any of those images? Would love to see if online.


----------



## JPAZ (Jun 29, 2020)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I am expecting to sell my MK IV and get the R5, but I'll want the full specs and some reviews to decide for sure..



I am in the same boat. I use my EF 24-70 f/2.8 on the 5Div and the RF 24-105 on my RP. I'll probably, depending on my finances and how the prices change over time, switch to the R5. But then, I can use the EF 24-70 f/2.8 on the R5 with an adapter, and thanks to the IBIS, will have image stabilization with that lens for the first time. So, I don't feel rushed to replace that EF lens with the RF lens.


----------



## Frodo (Jun 30, 2020)

I know that this is comparing the RF 28-70/2 vs 24-70/2.8, but I find 70mm to be often too short for my photography with a mid-range zoom. Fully one third of the photos taken with my EF 24-105/4 were at focal lengths greater than 70mm. Even for my event work, I would rather have the longer reach than the wider aperture.


----------

