# RF 24-70 f2.8 L IS vs EF 24-70 f2.8 LII - both on EOS R



## Larsskv (Oct 21, 2019)

The digital pictures have released comparison images of the new RF 24-70 and the EF 24-70 f2.8 L II, both on the EOS R. The new lens seems to be a better performer at all focal lengths. 









Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L 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


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 21, 2019)

The difference is quite noticeable at all focal lengths, but with zoom lenses, a large number need to be tested to get a good idea, since the variation from lens to lens can be substantial.

I would certainly expect the lens to be improved a little.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 21, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The difference is quite noticeable at all focal lengths, but with zoom lenses, a large number need to be tested to get a good idea, since the variation from lens to lens can be substantial.
> 
> I would certainly expect the lens to be improved a little.


I remember Roger (LensRentals) stating for all new’ish lenses from Canon that copy variation was extremely low. That is always promising.

DPReview posted a gallery, 0.5% looked not boring. Not sure if that’s the nature of a standard zoom or they just took boring pictures. But the choice, for me, between the 28-70 and the 24-70 is annoying. I would like IS and 24 and the f2.0.


----------



## Act444 (Oct 22, 2019)

General theme seems to be (generally speaking):

EF lens - (slightly) better in the center
RF lens - better in the corners

Given the MILC system of AF going out to the edges of the frame, trading some center sharpness for improved corners seems like a reasonable trade-off.


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 22, 2019)

Looks like the RF comunity has a nice tool to work with...



Act444 said:


> EF lens - (slightly) better in the center
> RF lens - better in the corners


YMMV, but to me it looks different, esp. at 50 and 70 mm.
There I can see a slight advantage for the RF in the cener sharpness and a visible advantage in the corners.

But the difference in the center is less than what I would expect from (even little) copy variations.


----------



## edoorn (Oct 22, 2019)

interesting! I had the chance to shoot the R yesterday with the new 24-70 and took home some raw files; looks pretty good. In the center, the old 24-70 already was quite sharp so no complaints there, but the RF looks a lot better in those corners and that indeed for me is worth it. 

Also impressive is the IS, and the focus speed which is near instant. So there's more to this lens than just the IQ.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 22, 2019)

edoorn said:


> interesting! I had the chance to shoot the R yesterday with the new 24-70 and took home some raw files; looks pretty good. In the center, the old 24-70 already was quite sharp so no complaints there, but the RF looks a lot better in those corners and that indeed for me is worth it.
> 
> Also impressive is the IS, and the focus speed which is near instant. So there's more to this lens than just the IQ.


The AF was great on the EF-version, but from the short videos here and there the nano-usm looks like it really is something else. And sharpness means nothing without af-precision. And the R is by extreme lengths the most accurate body I’ve used so, include IS and I think it’s a real winner.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 22, 2019)

Since I have the 50 1.2, easy choice for me: 24-70 w/IS. BUT I am in no hurry to trade in the ef 24-70 2.8 II, because for fast paced events where I use the mid-range zoom, the R just doesn't cut the mustard.


----------



## edoorn (Oct 22, 2019)

Viggo said:


> The AF was great on the EF-version, but from the short videos here and there the nano-usm looks like it really is something else. And sharpness means nothing without af-precision. And the R is by extreme lengths the most accurate body I’ve used so, include IS and I think it’s a real winner.



I find the focus on the 24-70 fine, although newer lenses are better, in particular in harder situations like less light, contrast, etc. IMO, that is. A reason to mount the 35 II in those situations. With what I saw yesterday with the RF version there will be much less need to do that. 

And I do agree that for fast paced events the R doesn't cut it yet, so waiting patiently to see what comes next year..


----------



## Act444 (Oct 29, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Since I have the 50 1.2, easy choice for me: 24-70 w/IS. BUT I am in no hurry to trade in the ef 24-70 2.8 II, because for fast paced events where I use the mid-range zoom, the R just doesn't cut the mustard.



And therein lies the problem...

Thanks to a sweet deal I will soon enter into the R-mount world via the RP. But as badly as I lust after the RF 24-70, I can’t justify it yet. It can’t replace the EF version at this stage. It’s not the lens itself - it’s because at the events that call for a 24-70, I need to use a 5D body anyway for optimal results. 

In fact I’m going with just the 35mm right now and will hold off on any higher-end RF stuff until I see a more capable R body(ies) that justifies investment in them.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 29, 2019)

Act444 said:


> And therein lies the problem...
> 
> Thanks to a sweet deal I will soon enter into the R-mount world via the RP. But as badly as I lust after the RF 24-70, I can’t justify it yet. It can’t replace the EF version at this stage. It’s not the lens itself - it’s because at the events that call for a 24-70, I need to use a 5D body anyway for optimal results.
> 
> In fact I’m going with just the 35mm right now and will hold off on any higher-end RF stuff until I see a more capable R body(ies) that justifies investment in them.


I just posted same sentiments in the "Big Price Drops..." thread! Yes. The market has had a year since the release of the R to learn its strengths and weaknesses. I can tell you it is the BEST portrait camera I've ever owned, due to its incredibly precise AI Servo AF, being able to see the exposure while composing, and the Rf prime lenses available now. But, for me, once action is involved, even typical event type movements (not talking about sports or dance, etc!), the 5DIV is what I trust.


----------



## Act444 (Oct 29, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> I can tell you [that the EOS R] is the BEST portrait camera I've ever owned, due to its incredibly precise AI Servo AF, being able to see the exposure while composing, and the Rf prime lenses available now.



Interesting, I’ve heard people say that. For me that camera has been the 5DSR due to its resolution and color science. Would be interesting to see its MILC replacement and how it holds up.


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 29, 2019)

Act444 said:


> And therein lies the problem...
> 
> Thanks to a sweet deal I will soon enter into the R-mount world via the RP. But as badly as I lust after the RF 24-70, I can’t justify it yet. It can’t replace the EF version at this stage. It’s not the lens itself - it’s because at the events that call for a 24-70, I need to use a 5D body anyway for optimal results.
> 
> In fact I’m going with just the 35mm right now and will hold off on any higher-end RF stuff until I see a more capable R body(ies) that justifies investment in them.



I'm extremely happy with the CPL adaptor on my RP, so much that I'm no longer GAS'ing about the RF lenses. That and discovering not one, but two rental places nearby with tons of RF and EF lenses


----------



## gljones77 (Jan 8, 2020)

Hi Everyone,

I am NOT a photographer so I can't follow half of everything mentioned above, but my wife loves photography and I'm looking for a gift for her. She has a Canon EOS 5D Mark IV camera. I found this forum while trying to compare the two lenses you have listed above... (The RF 24-70mm F/2.8L IS USM and the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM) 

She has rented the EF multiple times over the last couple of years for various uses and I would like to get her the lens as a gift but I'm not sure the differences (advantages/disadvantages of one over the other; other than the cost). And I can't ask her because she would know what I am up to...

Recognizing the price difference, what other differences are there that matter? Can she even use an R series lens on the 5D Mark IV? I am out of my element here and could use some more experienced opinions...

Thanks in advance!!


----------



## jd7 (Jan 9, 2020)

gljones77 said:


> Hi Everyone,
> 
> I am NOT a photographer so I can't follow half of everything mentioned above, but my wife loves photography and I'm looking for a gift for her. She has a Canon EOS 5D Mark IV camera. I found this forum while trying to compare the two lenses you have listed above... (The RF 24-70mm F/2.8L IS USM and the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM)
> 
> ...


RF lenses will not work on the 5D mark IV, so your decision is easy, you need to get the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II  To make use of the RF 24-70 f/2.8L IS, you would need to buy an RF mount camera (currently your choices are the EOS R and the EOS RP) as well.

Hope that helps!


----------



## gljones77 (Jan 9, 2020)

jd7 said:


> RF lenses will not work on the 5D mark IV, so your decision is easy, you need to get the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II  To make use of the RF 24-70 f/2.8L IS, you would need to buy an RF mount camera (currently your choices are the EOS R and the EOS RP) as well.
> 
> Hope that helps!



thank you jd7! Definitely makes for a much easier choice! I appreciate the reply!


----------

