# Canon EF 24-70mm F/2.8L II USM vs RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM



## puffo25 (Mar 6, 2021)

Hi all. I have a EOS R5 and I already own a RF 16-35mm f/2,8 and a RF 70-200mm f/2,8 along with the EF 300mm f/4 and the EF 8-15mm f/4 fisheye.

Now I have a question since I own also an EF 24-70mm F/2.8L I USM zoom lens. Is it worth accodording to your opinion to sell/upgrade this current zoom lens and get the either the EF 24-70mm F/2.8L II USM or the RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM?
I ask because not always newest products are necessary better. Price vs image quality is also an important factor to consider.

What is your opinion in this repect?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 6, 2021)

puffo25 said:


> Hi all. I have a EOS R5 and I already own a RF 16-35mm f/2,8 and a RF 70-200mm f/2,8 along with the EF 300mm f/4 and the EF 8-15mm f/4 fisheye.
> 
> Now I have a question since I own also an EF 24-70mm F/2.8L I USM zoom lens. Is it worth accodording to your opinion to sell/upgrade this current zoom lens and get the either the EF 24-70mm F/2.8L II USM or the RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM?
> I ask because not always newest products are necessary better. Price vs image quality is also an important factor to consider.
> ...


I suggest you take a look at the "Optical Limits" tests, they have proven to be quite reliable and objective! They have reviewed all 3 24-70s.
Good luck!


----------



## puffo25 (Mar 6, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> I suggest you take a look at the "Optical Limits" tests, they have proven to be quite reliable and objective! They have reviewed all 3 24-70s.
> Good luck!


Hi, I have checked the Optical Limits site. Thanks. However that site does not provide a side by side comparision. If I look the single test, probably the latest RF is better but cost a lot of money and the EF 24-70mm F/2.8L II USM is probably the best solution overall (comparing the 3 lenses) but it is not stabilized. Anyhow, it is interesting to note that on Optical Limits they are almost preferring the Tamron AF 24-70mm f/2.8 SP Di USD VC. However if you do to the DxOMark lens testing site, Canon emerge as better lens... Mmmm, quite confusing decision here.


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 6, 2021)

I guess it's simply opticallimits.com (easy to find with Google).
Then, on their website, go to "Canon Full Format", scroll a bit, that's all!


----------



## puffo25 (Mar 6, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> I guess it's simply opticallimits.com (easy to find with Google).
> Then, on their website, go to "Canon FF", scroll a bit, that's all!


Thanks. I have found it and just replied above....


----------



## Larsskv (Mar 6, 2021)

I own both. I think the RF 24-70 is better overall than the EF 24-70 II. Sharper, better AF and more “character” than the EF version. Most noticeable for me is that the RF lens lacks serious weak points at various focal lengths. It is acceptably sharp (but not flawless) across the focal plane at every focal length and aperture. The EF version is mostly good, but has some serious weak points at certain focal length. I have had 5 versions of the EF lens, and all of them suffers to some degree from this issue. If you can afford it, you will be happier with the RF lens.


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 7, 2021)

I never owned the original EF 24-70 f/2.8L. Instead, I opted for a UWA zoom, a telephoto zoom and a 50mm prime. When the EF version II came out, I got the zoom. The II is significantly sharper than the original especially toward the center (you can look at the comparisons at the-digital-picture.com). The RF is similar to the EF II. The RF is slightly better at 70mm, but both lenses are significantly worse performers at that focal length than the EF or RF 70-200 f/2.8. Yes, the RF has IS but it also costs a lot more. If you are price sensitive, I'd suggest getting a used EF II. With the R5 and its IBIS, lens IS is less critical.


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 7, 2021)

puffo25 said:


> Hi, I have checked the Optical Limits site. Thanks. However that site does not provide a side by side comparision.


The Digital Picture site has side by side [well, roll over] comparison of test charts photos.


puffo25 said:


> If I look the single test, probably the latest RF is better but cost a lot of money and the EF 24-70mm F/2.8L II USM is probably the best solution overall (comparing the 3 lenses) but it is not stabilized.


The R5 has IBIS, which AFAIK works with EF lenses. I think that raises the question whether it works well enough for you, or would you pay extra to get optical IS.


puffo25 said:


> Anyhow, it is interesting to note that on Optical Limits they are almost preferring the Tamron AF 24-70mm f/2.8 SP Di USD VC. However if you do to the DxOMark lens testing site, Canon emerge as better lens... Mmmm, quite confusing decision here.


I would search for any compatibility between the R5 and third Tamron lenses in general, and the AF 24-70mm f/2.8 SP in specific. IIRC, there were some reports of issues with 3rd party lenses, though I can't recall if those were with Tamron or other manufacturers.

And, yes, its a hard call.


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 7, 2021)

What I'm convinced of is: getting the RF can't be wrong int terms of quality and compatibility.
It all comes down, in the end, to the question of whether you want or can afford it.
This, I think, is the only real decision you'll have to take...


----------



## puffo25 (Mar 7, 2021)

Thanks all for your great support. So in essence I think I will sell my old EF 24-70mm first version and buy either the "upgraded" EF 24-70mm II or, if I find a good deal, the RF 24-70mm.


----------



## JPAZ (Mar 8, 2021)

My EF 24-70 f/2.8 mkii became my "walk around" lens on a DSLR without IBIS. I usually did not miss IS and the output was great. Now, adapted to an R5 with IBIS, I think it is even better. To be fair, I am not considering moving from this to the RF version. The finances don't support that move. I would upgrade my EF 100-400 mkii to an RF 100-500 instead


----------



## Czardoom (Mar 8, 2021)

While online tests are interesting, the only way to know if any of these lenses will offer better IQ than the lens you have would be to try it out for yourself. If you can rent one, I would recommend that. I have found that if you are not a pixel peeper, there is rarely any noticeable difference between lenses as similar as these. Online test won't tell you. Your actual photos and experience will tell you.


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 8, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> While online tests are interesting, the only way to know if any of these lenses will offer better IQ than the lens you have would be to try it out for yourself. If you can rent one, I would recommend that. I have found that if you are not a pixel peeper, there is rarely any noticeable difference between lenses as similar as these. Online test won't tell you. Your actual photos and experience will tell you.


I agree!
LensRentals tests are only performed at full aperture, while TDP's sharpness comparisons are hard to evaluate, Opticallimits test one sample etc...
Yet, I found out that I could rely more on Opticallimits than on "competition". They test at various focal settings and apertures.
Example: if you rely on LensRentals, you'll only know that the EF 1,2/85 L is weak fully open, but not that it gets tack sharp at f 5,6. They don't do "special" lenses justice. If LR had tested the Summilux 1,4/75, I wouldn't have bought my favorite lens...
As you wrote, test in real life, and not on flat charts... and not only wide open, unless you shoot mostly portraits!
Nevertheless, if you're focused on mirrorless, the RF could be the choice of reason.


----------



## puffo25 (Mar 8, 2021)

Thanks @Del Paso , @JPAZ @Czardoom , @Antono Refa @Larsskv and @Random Orbits for your clarifications and contribution. In conclusion I guess it is indeed a good idea to try to sell my first version of the EF 24-70mm and try to get either a EF 24-70mm second series, or if i win the lottery, lol, the RF 24-70mm. Thanks again all


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 8, 2021)

If I only had RF cameras I wouldn't dream of buying another EF lens (assuming what I needed was made in RF mount).


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 8, 2021)

Regarding the EF 24-70 vs the MkII, I tested a couple of MkII's and didn't see the point in upgrading, the differences in IQ were minimal according to my data.

But again, if I was all in on RF there is no way I'd replace an EF 24-70 f2.8 with an EF 24-70 f2.8 MkII. The RF 24-70 is the only upgrade you should be looking at.


----------



## puffo25 (Mar 9, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> If I only had RF cameras I wouldn't dream of buying another EF lens (assuming what I needed was made in RF mount).


Hi, btw the RF 24-70mm f/2,8 and the RF 28-70mm f/2,0 which one you would buy in terms of image quality/sharpness and so on?


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 10, 2021)

puffo25 said:


> Hi, btw the RF 24-70mm f/2,8 and the RF 28-70mm f/2,0 which one you would buy in terms of image quality/sharpness and so on?


Hi puffo25, I wouldn't give a second thought to image quality or sharpness, both are superb lenses. I would go with the one that suited my style more, and personally for my day to day stuff that would be the 24-70 as I really like the wider than 28mm framing.

However if I could handle the size weight and cost and was going traveling I'd happily take just the 28-70 as I mostly use a 35 f2 when traveling and that one zoom would give me more flexibility. 

Though honestly, as I have gotten older I use zoom lenses less and less because my shooting style has changed over time.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Mar 10, 2021)

puffo25 said:


> Hi, btw the RF 24-70mm f/2,8 and the RF 28-70mm f/2,0 which one you would buy in terms of image quality/sharpness and so on?



I had the 28-70 for a short time, and since picked up the 24-70... both are superb lenses.

It pretty much comes down two things...
1. Do you want/need a f2 mid range zoom?
2. Are you willing to lug around a monster lens?

Quality-wise I consider the 28-70 to be the best of the best when it comes to lenses. Right until you have to pick it up and use it.

24-70/2.8 = 1.98lbs, 82mm filter
28-70/2 = 3.15lbs, 95mm filter
70-200/2.8 = 2.64lbs, 77mm filter
100-500 = 3.35lbs, 77mm filter (just for fun to show how heavy the other is)

For me both the 2.8's are a breeze to hold and walkabout for long periods of time. And the funny thing is even though the f2 is only marginally lighter than the 100-500 (and not by much). I would rather hold the 100-500 for long periods of time rather than the 28-70. The 28-70 ended up not fitting my use case (and I really wanted it to).

Arguably, unless you pixel peep both are great, and the 2.8 isn't really settling imo... especially if you have a fast prime to pair with the kit.


----------



## Soren Hakanlind (Mar 10, 2021)

I think it's much more important what's behind the lens.  If it's a Canon RF, EF, Tamron or Sigma lens doesn't matter so much. They are all good enough. For a professional it's more about building quality and weight.


----------



## puffo25 (Mar 10, 2021)

Hi all, thanks again for your feedback. Since I am already 56 years old and I am a bit overweight and I do like travel phtography, carry a monster/heavy zoom lens like the RF 28-70mm f/2.0 might be a big sacrifice that can affect my passion to take pictures. Maybe, as I like to walk around when I travel, a more compact and less heavier RF 24-70mm f/2,8 might be a better solution also because even if I like sometime to shoot on low light/critical conditions, with the R5 I can still get high ISO without much quality loss. An considering that the RF 28-70mm f/2.0 cost also a bit more, probably the RF 24-70mm f/2.8 might be the better and more natural choice. I think that most of you might agree with me?


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 10, 2021)

puffo25 said:


> Hi all, thanks again for your feedback. Since I am already 56 years old and I am a bit overweight and I do like travel phtography, carry a monster/heavy zoom lens like the RF 28-70mm f/2.0 might be a big sacrifice that can affect my passion to take pictures. Maybe, as I like to walk around when I travel, a more compact and less heavier RF 24-70mm f/2,8 might be a better solution also because even if I like sometime to shoot on low light/critical conditions, with the R5 I can still get high ISO without much quality loss. An considering that the RF 28-70mm f/2.0 cost also a bit more, probably the RF 24-70mm f/2.8 might be the better and more natural choice. I think that most of you might agree with me?


The 28-70 is a great event lens... halfway between the f/2.8 zoom and the f/1.4 primes. It gets you closer to the DOF/subject isolation of primes while still giving you the flexibility of halving your ISO when doing indoor shots and/or balanced with flash. If I shot weddings to make a living, the 28-70 would be my most used lens. But it is heavy and takes larger filters. I would not like to hike with the 28-70.

The RF 24-70 matches better with the 15-35. Both use 82mm filters. It's too bad the RF 70-200 stayed with 77mm filters. Another possibility is looking into the RF 24-105. It shares the 77mm filter size with the RF 70-200. If you end up shooting in low light a lot, you'll end up with f/1.2 or f/1.4 primes in addition to the midrange zoom.


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 11, 2021)

I think it is all about the ergonomics and the need for lens IS. I use the ef 35mm f/1.4L II on the R6. AF is not only lightning fast, but very accurate. IQ amazing.

I had the 24-70mm 2.8L II and loved it, but when I bought the R, I really wanted the lens IS of the RF. Now that I have the R6, I'm not sure I'd bother. The adapter is no issue whatsoever with the 35mm.

But for somebody who doesn't already own the ef 24-70mm f/2.8L II, I'd say the RF version is an easy choice.


----------



## SO8 (Aug 16, 2021)

I had the Mk1 ef24-70f2.8 and then the Mk2 ef24-70f2.8 …. Followed by the Rf 24-70 f2.8 on my R5. Most recently I have tried an Rf 28-70 f2.

The Mk1 ef 24-70 was softer at f2.8 than the Mk2. Other than wide open it was as sharp as the Mk2. It weighed more and focus was quite a bit closer.

I preferred the Mk2 but disliked the fact I could not get as close as with the Mk1. The Mk2 was a lot nicer to handle and was IMO a much better lens … close focus aside.

The Rf 24-70 f2.8 is better still. It is as sharp as the ef mk2 but focus is close ! It takes it all on a notch from the ef versions and suits the R5 well.

the Rf 28-70 f2 is awesome and IMO subjectively the better for IQ … but I can’t put my finger on it. Others in reviews say the images have more ‘character’ than the Rf 24-70 f2.8 and I tend to agree. I can’t say why but the images seem more ‘live’. Sharpness wise they seem the same at f2 with the other at f2.8. I just prefer the f2 images. Take trouble with the f2 lens is the size and weight versus minimal real gains compared to the 24-70 f2.8 lenses.


----------

