# Is the RF 28-70 F2 REALLY as sharp as primes?



## xanbarksdale (Mar 6, 2020)

I feel like I’ve watched every video and read every review about the 28-70, but is love to hear from people on this forum.

Do you feel that the RF 28-70 F2 can REALLY replace primes? Is it that much sharper than the RF 24-70 f2.8?

I don’t care about the weight or the price, is the image quality that far ahead of other zooms?


----------



## Viggo (Mar 6, 2020)

I thought it matched the EF 24-70, but wide open? So yes, very sharp, but not as sharp as the new RF-L primes? Btw have you seen it in person? I was pretty surprised by the size, it dwarfed my RF85, lol.


----------



## xanbarksdale (Mar 6, 2020)

Viggo said:


> I thought it matched the EF 24-70, but wide open? So yes, very sharp, but not as sharp as the new RF-L primes? Btw have you seen it in person? I was pretty surprised by the size, it dwarfed my RF85, lol.



How would you compare it to the EF primes? 35 1.4, 50 1.2, 85 1.2, etc.?


----------



## Viggo (Mar 6, 2020)

xanbarksdale said:


> How would you compare it to the EF primes? 35 1.4, 50 1.2, 85 1.2, etc.?


I don’t own the 28-70 so not sure, but both the EF 50 L and EF 85 L are very soft so at least wide open and a stop down the 28-70 is sharper.


----------



## xanbarksdale (Mar 6, 2020)

Viggo said:


> I don’t own the 28-70 so not sure, but both the EF 50 L and EF 85 L are very soft so at least wide open and a stop down the 28-70 is sharper.



Very soft!?! Those are two of the sharpest lenses out there...


----------



## Larsskv (Mar 6, 2020)

xanbarksdale said:


> Very soft!?! Those are two of the sharpest lenses out there...



Well, I own and I love the images I get from the EF 50L and EF 85LII, but their strengths aren’t that they are especially sharp. The 85 LII gets quite sharp when you stop it down. The EF 50L is ok from f2. 

Here is a comparison between the EF and RF 50L lenses:









Canon RF 50mm F1.2 L USM Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 50mm F1.2 L USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com


----------



## Viggo (Mar 6, 2020)

xanbarksdale said:


> Very soft!?! Those are two of the sharpest lenses out there...


Then you really haven’t used a sharp lens, not by any standard is the EF 50 L sharp. Try the 200 f2 or 35 L II etc. in that case the RF50 and RF85 will blow your mind...


----------



## xanbarksdale (Mar 6, 2020)

Viggo said:


> Then you really haven’t used a sharp lens, not by any standard is the EF 50 L sharp. Try the 200 f2 or 35 L II etc. in that case the RF50 and RF85 will blow your mind...



I own the 35 L II and it's not as sharp as either the 50 or the 85.


----------



## SecureGSM (Mar 6, 2020)

xanbarksdale said:


> I own the 35 L II and it's not as sharp as either the 50 or the 85.











Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com





here is EF 50/1.2 vs EF 35/1.4 II comparison at F1.4. Please review and see if EF 50/1.2 still sharper for you. Let us know. Thanks


----------



## Larsskv (Mar 6, 2020)

xanbarksdale said:


> I own the 35 L II and it's not as sharp as either the 50 or the 85.


Are you comparing them wide open, or stopped down? I also own the 35LII, and it is much sharper than the 50L. Between f1.4 and f1.8 it will be easily visible that the 35LII is sharper, even without zooming in.

If your 35LII isn't sharper than your EF 50L at f1.4, it is damaged.


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 6, 2020)

xanbarksdale said:


> Very soft!?! Those are two of the sharpest lenses out there...


Did you perhaps mean the RF lenses , because it's a well established fact that the EF 50 and EF 85 are soft wide open.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 6, 2020)

All of you talking about getting the RF 50 (or EF 35mm f/1/4L II) would be far better served getting the RF 28-70 or RF 85 in my opinion. The RF 50 is a fantastic lens, no doubt. I owned it. However, the 28-70 or 85 for most portrait uses in my opinion, are better choices. Not faulting the 50 at all. It is one fine lens. Just speaking from my own experience. For portraits the 28-70 beats the 50 due to the versatility of a zoom with zero appreciable downside. Extremely sharp. Though f/1.2 is a plus, in practice it has limited use. Facial distortion is a big deal. I know there are many who absolutely love a prime 50mm. Yes, for my uses the RF 28-70mm f/2L can absolutely replece 3 primes. I owned the EF 35mm f/1.4L II. It was a fantastic lens, but then again, it was one lens. The 28-70 is 3, and does a stellar job. I would never go back. The RF lenses compared to EF isn't even a fair comparison. RF wins wide open every single time. I owned the EF 35mm f/1.4L II and it really is a special lens, but I would wait to see what is offered in RF.


----------



## xanbarksdale (Mar 6, 2020)

Real world use is often very different than shooting a focus board...I don't think 1.2 or 1.4 is useful for shooting most portraits. Even when you nail the focus the depth of field is soooo shallow. I find the sweet spot for my photos are 2.0 or 2.2...not because of the sharpness, but because of the DOF.

The worst L lens I ever had was the first 24-70 version I that I owned...that's the only L lens that I've ever owned that could be classified as "very soft."


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 6, 2020)

xanbarksdale said:


> Real world use is often very different than shooting a focus board...I don't think 1.2 or 1.4 is useful for shooting most portraits. Even when you nail the focus the depth of field is soooo shallow. I find the sweet spot for my photos are 2.0 or 2.2...not because of the sharpness, but because of the DOF.
> 
> The worst L lens I ever had was the first 24-70 version I that I owned...that's the only L lens that I've ever owned that could be classified as "very soft."


Where f/1.2 is useful is at a distance from the subject and in low light and extreme sharpness (in the case of RF). That is what RF 85L @ f/1.2 offers. Now, if you only count portraits as being head shots, you have a point. Portraits are far more than that. Last photo is at f/1.8/


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 6, 2020)

xanbarksdale said:


> Real world use is often very different than shooting a focus board...I don't think 1.2 or 1.4 is useful for shooting most portraits. Even when you nail the focus the depth of field is soooo shallow. I find the sweet spot for my photos are 2.0 or 2.2...not because of the sharpness, but because of the DOF.
> 
> The worst L lens I ever had was the first 24-70 version I that I owned...that's the only L lens that I've ever owned that could be classified as "very soft."


On the other hand, my former EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II was very sharp @F/2.8


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 6, 2020)

RF 50 f/1.2L headshots at f/1.2


----------



## xanbarksdale (Mar 6, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Where f/1.2 is useful is at a distance from the subject and in low light and extreme sharpness (in the case of RF). That is what RF @ f/1.2 offers. Now, if you only count portraits as being head shots, you have a point. Portraits are far more than that. Last photo is at f/1.8/



All I can speak for is my shooting style.

"Low light performance" isn't very important to me. IMO all of the new cameras have more than acceptable noise:ISO...I rarely go above 1600, I typically shoot in the sunlight.


----------



## xanbarksdale (Mar 6, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> On the other hand, my former EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II was very sharp @F/2.8



I agree. The 24-70 2.8 II that I own now is fantastic.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 6, 2020)

xanbarksdale said:


> All I can speak for is my shooting style.
> 
> "Low light performance" isn't very important to me. IMO all of the new cameras have more than acceptable noise:ISO...I rarely go above 1600, I typically shoot in the sunlight.


Amd as you can see, all those shots were in daylight, with flash and ND filters... so It is all about using the tools at your disposal. If you shoot straight daylight, of course, you are very limited. Fast glass will not be your friend.

Here's some shot in daylight with the EF 35mm f/1.4 II wide open... taking advantage of shade.


----------



## Larsskv (Mar 6, 2020)

xanbarksdale said:


> Real world use is often very different than shooting a focus board...I don't think 1.2 or 1.4 is useful for shooting most portraits. Even when you nail the focus the depth of field is soooo shallow. I find the sweet spot for my photos are 2.0 or 2.2...not because of the sharpness, but because of the DOF.
> 
> The worst L lens I ever had was the first 24-70 version I that I owned...that's the only L lens that I've ever owned that could be classified as "very soft."



My preferred aperture when shooting the EF 50L and EF 85 LII is f2. I love the images I get from those two lenses, and I appreciate them and the images they give me more than the 35LII.

The RF 50 and RF 85 lenses, I shoot wide open at f1.2. I see no reason for stopping them down. They are tack sharp, and their bokeh is amazing.


----------



## Quirkz (Mar 6, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Where f/1.2 is useful is at a distance from the subject and in low light and extreme sharpness (in the case of RF). That is what RF @ f/1.2 offers. Now, if you only count portraits as being head shots, you have a point. Portraits are far more than that. Last photo is at f/1.8/



Just to clarify, these shots are with the rf50 that you sold in favor of the 28-70?

Great images, as always.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 6, 2020)

Quirkz said:


> Just to clarify, these shots are with the rf50 that you sold in favor of the 28-70?
> 
> Great images, as always.


The ones labeled as from the RF 50, yes.


----------

