RF 28-70 f/2 price is back to $2799. I was driving listening to your video and when I heard you say it was $500 off, I couldn't wait to check. I'm still saving up for the 28-70 and I can hardly wait! I like watching everything you make for TH-cam! Thank you!
I purchased this lens exclusively for sports. It arrived last week and so far I have shot only three basketball games (about 3k photos so far). It is amazing. Tomorrow I will use it for wrestling. This thing for indoor sports on my R3 is brilliant.
Yes, that was a magical time, just off of Thanksgiving, when Canon put the hot RF lenses on a $500, discount. Those prices didn't last long and didn't come back after Christmas. Did pull the trigger on something myself. Sometimes you just have to go for it.
@@southbridgeforestHOA I am still seeing $300 off. Where are you seeing the $500 discount still going? Sounds like that might be a good outlet to know about.
@@VanessaJoy Oh I'm just catching up. I'd been looking at, testing, renting 24-70 options for a couple of years. From Tamron to various Canon iterations. Since video is becoming our lingua franca, IS is more valued in wide angles, but the Canon was better glass at the edges in my testing and some would say slightly faster in AF. So I was stuck. One day I realized a 5D mkIV wasn't keeping up with AF the way I would like in tough sports like girls volleyball, so I bit the bullet for an R4 - actually my wife helped - and the problem was solved: RF version has IS and probably even sharper glass. I thought about buying the f2.0 version that you and many others love, but I was having trouble imagining a battery slinging that much glass around that fast for sports. Five hours of chasing basketball with the 24-70 and a 70-200 leaves my recently sprained shoulder a little sore, and hands feeling well-used (but happy) so it's probably for the best that I don't own the heavier f2.0. (All of which leaves me with a certain amount of admiration for the shift a wedding photographer pulls.) R4 refurbs dipped low there for a day or two around the same time. So I did a lot of crash studying. My theory is that Canon needed to do some market testing at this time.
I preordered this lens from Canon USA the night it was announced and have the production lens. No complaints from me except the lack of lens profile in DXO PureRAW. Adobe has one and it works well at 24mm but has a weird pixel smearing effect around the edges at other focal lengths. I’m sure it will get fixed and may be specific to the Mac OS based software. Other than that, it’s sharp and fast… 🤷🏻♂️
One thing I forgot to mention was that I was surprised that my R5 didn’t need a firmware update to enable the use of the aperture ring. They must have included support for the feature in an earlier firmware update. 👍🏻. For video work it has the feel of a nice cinema lens.
Do you notice more of a difference between F1.2 and F2.0 OR F2.8 and F2.0? You mentioned there being a big difference between F2.8 and F2.0 on the RF 28 to 70 mm, so that’s a one spot difference. A prime lens being F1.2 to F1.4 is a one stop + difference from F2.0… so is that a big difference as well?
Yep, you can do that. Still missing 24-27mm, though. You could use this lens in crop mode and get 24-168, which would trump the Tamron 35-150 people like to say is "better."
Ok, I am definitely late, but I agree: I'll go with the Family Man, too! Great lens by the way (I love my 24-105 f4 for its versatility), but if I had the money I would go for the 28-70 f2 for the prime look. 😋
Looks like a cool lens but since I already have the 28-70 and 70-200, I really don’t see the need. I’d much rather get a 35mm 1.2L. Holiday movies? I’m a Big Lebowski little achiever so... :) and When Harry Met Sally… I’d also include Serendipity but Kate Beckinsale blocked me on Instagram LMAO.
I understand that this lens features a lot for videographers, but I wish they had made it simpler and put it closer to the f/4 version to make it more affordable. For what this lens offers I would love to have it while travelling. But for now I will play the waiting game and see if Sigma and Tamron will finally be allowed to join the RF party. Tamron's 35-150mm f/2 - 2.8 would be my favourite pick, even compared to this.
Well, you have the f/4 version, which will probably always exist, so this one has to be next level. If you want a more affordable, similar f/2.8 range with better IQ than the 24-105 f/4, there's the 24-70 f/2.8 (remember that one LOL).
Great review in that it convinced me that I have absolutely no need for this lens due to size, weight, and cost. It doesn't tell with the way I shoot and I am not inspired by the output.
I'll just wait till a 3rd party version of this lens comes out or wait for the price to drop $500 in a few years like the 28-70mm f/2 price has dropped. It is really cool to see canon coming out with these awesome new lenses, but the price is ridiculous.
I have this new 24-105/2.8L. Awesome lens for my use and needs, which is the reason I bought it. At least 90% of my work can be done with this lens. From now on, I only bring extra lenses if I know I need those for some special use. Otherwise I can just go with one lens, and that is truly something!
Hate to say it, but all of the pics you show in the last min, would have looked so much better @ tighter dof, eg @ f1.2 or f1.4 - to knock out that distracting background, imo.
The classic combos are the 24-70 and 70-200, and the tog will often need a prime for the day also and a lighter wider lens for the reception shots (as you point out). So the idea here with this lens is to replace the 24-70 AND 70-200 freeing up the other camera body to a single prime. Less lens swapping, less necessity for a carry on bag, two bodies, done. If I had the money I would entertain this set up, running with a 24-105/2.8 and a 50/1.4 sounds superb (with a fast 24 in the back pocket). Or you could do a 28-70/2 and a fast 135. Canon are killing it, congrats.
I love my 28-70 f2. It has a certain…”look”. Portraits, travel, food, events…my R5-f2 pair is my go-to companion. I’ll be happily skipping the amazing but not-for-me 24-105 f2.8. Thanks for confirming this for me!
I predict a video ~9 months from now titled "Why I was wrong about the RF 24-105 f/2.8"....signed a RF 24-105 f/2.8 owner. :) .... and I go classic...It's a Wonderful Life or Scrooge (Albert Finney).
Hi Vanessa, I enjoyed watching your video (a few times now). I see lots of complaints about size/weight/price in the comments, here and elsewhere. These are the same grumblings the 28-70 had when it first came out. After some time passed, and more people used the 28-70, it's now very well revered, myself included. This new 24-105 is a new direction Canon is going with hybrid lenses, as it's clearly designed for video and photography use. I think some people need to understand this, as many complaining comments are only thinking of it for photography. Personally, I am one of those that think this is a "one and done" lens for most applications. However, I do like my 28-70 very much, and the f/2 is the only edge I'd say it has over the 24-105. I think as this new 24-105 gets more widespread use, it will surpass the "too big/heavy/expensive" complaints and become a new standard in - standard zooms!
When you consider you can get away with just using this lens and crop mode (R5, maybe not R6 etc) then it makes sense. If you’re going out with two two cameras and two lenses, that’s heavy…
I was planning to replace my EF 24-70 f/2.8 with the RF version. In researching, I saw the 28-70 f/2.0 and then the 24-105 f/2.8, but initially didn’t want to spend the extra money. Then as I thought about it, at that price it isn’t that much more and like the idea of extra reach for versatility. I mainly photograph roller derby and don’t feel I need the f/2.0 even though it would be nice. I also have the EF 70-200 f/2.8. Thank you for your review, I enjoy your videos.
I agree that it would be great for video. I have the ef F4 version and it’s one of my favorites for an all around lens. I would rather invest in the 28-70 for portrait use. Another excellent video.
I like the fact that you get 4 focal lengths in one all at 2.8 but that 3k price tag though? Nope, that's what would steer me away from this lens. I'm sure their are other alternatives for less.
I shoot with the RF 24-105 F4.0 and the RF 70-200 2.8 at weddings. Two of the greatest lenses I have ever used. For Bokeh, I think compression matters, and I won't shoot a bokeh with a wide Fstop below 85mm. I use my 70-200 2.8 for portraits on or above 85MM, 105MM, 135MM and 200MM. But normally I like shooting in lower Fstops to retain as much retail and sharpness as possible for post production which explains why I regard the f4.0 version of the 24-105 highly.
A few years back, I tried photographing a martial arts exam with a 24 to 105 f4, indoors with inconsistent light. The results were not good. I may be getting better as a photographer and the use of a full frame R camera, noise reduction in lightroom makes up for a lot. I cannot change locations, but those testing can move out further than 105 ideally. I would have loved this lens then, paired with a R7, it might solve my lack of the perfect lens. Need to try the R7 with the 24 to 105 f4. For an event where I am mobile, the 28 to 70 f2 just cannot be beat. A 35 to 150 might be ideal for my outlier usecase. A martial arts tournament is best served by a 70 to 200, these are in large gyms. The occasional 135f2 can create something truly special. Long story short, I would have loved an EF version of this lens years ago, i do not think it will make my work stand out, I think that is why Canon made it video focused.
So do you think the 24-105 f2.8 or 28-70 f/2 for martial arts tournaments? I’m literally trading all my gear to get one of these to photograph my kids testing and tournaments. And also their indoor school events. R6Mii is the body.
@@renees8262 First, I would slow down a bit, before spending that much. First determined what focal length you need for each event. Second be very precise in your use of depth of field. Martial arts tournaments, I have attended are in gyms, with 4 to 8 matt rings, and the ability to move in the stands and between the rings. For my experience the 70 to 200 focal length is the best. I am tall enough to shoot over most people. If your tournament setup is different, then pick the right range. 70 to 200 works for basketball in the stands, and ok for soccer. For testing, I could really use a 20mm to 135mm. I know that does not exist. For testing I must sit i. A single location and I do not know where my daughter will be until testing starts. I randomly pick the 24 to 70 f2.8 or the 24 to 105 f4. The noise reduction in lightroom has made my concerns about noise a non issue for me. Back to the depth of field issue. Sparring at F4 provides more flexibility in getting both students in focus, f2.8 and f2 will only get one student in focus. There are those moments when both students are on the same plane of focus, and there are also times, where you just want your child’s face in focus. Both the 24 to 70 and 70 to 200 are fast focusing lenses. Depth of field is f stop, focal length and distance, not all of these are under your control during certain sports. Wedding receptions the 28 to 70 is wonderful, but there is time to compose an image.
@@jeffreyhill4705wow this is so helpful!! Screenshot the whole message so I can think through it. I only get one of these lens for now so I definitely will use it as my guide to think through!! THANK YOU!!
Thought about getting this lens already have the trinity of 2.8 and sometimes i wish i had the reach of 105 but I bought the 85 1.2 cause that lens is just plain insane bokeh.
Being around weddings would make me sick quite quickly. By the way... Wouldn't it be great if we were celebrating their divorces in the same way ? 50% is lying about the 'until death do us part' so it would be a huge market !
I really appreciate the comparison and callout between this and the 28-70. I shoot a lot of Volleyball (action/portrait) and less but a lot of birds / wildlife. I started with the R6 and the 24-105 f4 Kit; however, I’m planning to upgrade to the R5ii this year and I’m trying to decide between this lense, 28-70 f2, or 24-70 f2.8 (Volleyball is mostly 35-70mm from the net). With your experience on the R5ii on both this and the 28-70, I’m curious which one is faster for autofocus or if one outperformances the other with the eye focus. I realize that wedding and sport is probably quite different as far as speed is concerned; the R6 has struggled to keep up when shooting at f2.8 (roughly 50% miss on the 70-200 @ f2.8) so I’ve been using f4 a lot. However the new AI Volleyball focus and eye tracking focus (R5) has me really wanting to shoot wide open; indoor sports is typically low light and I’m having to use denoising a lot at f4. Even on an overbuilt editing rig it is slowing down process flow quite a bit, especially if I have to use AI denoising in LR. I’m leaning toward the 28-70 since I tend to agree that it can replace primes in the bag, but I’m not sure if even the R5 can keep up with high speed shooting at f2; thus the question about focus speed. (I could probably also be more efficient as a photographer, don’t want to just blame the kit)
The R5 ii will be a dramatic improvement over the R6 - I don’t think the combo with either of those lenses will show any sign of lagging or that low of an accuracy rate. I don’t think you’ll notice that one is faster than the other either. Both around the same IMO
Has anyone ever mentioned that you mispronounce the word videographer? Not tying to be a dick - don't know if English is a 2nd language for you or its a regional thing. You're adding an extra syllable.
@@VanessaJoy Cool. I'm a cinematographer but sometimes I moonlight as a photo-ographer. Just got the 24-105 f2.8 a little bit after watching your review. Bought a refurb directly from Canon Sales - saved $400 plus they honored my tax exempt status, plus free shipping, so it was a hell of a deal. 1st 2 shoots with it this week on my R6 and it was a dream. Can't wait to get my Canon C400 to shoot some video with this lens. I never really liked shooting with my EF 24-105 f/4 L IS USM II. Zoom action always felt clunky. Manual focus always felt like a guess... just a blah lens. But this one rocks so far. It is a little heavy, especially with a speedlight on the camera as well... could feel it in my wrist at the end of the day. Overall I recommend this piece of glass for sure. Also this lens plus the Canon R6 still fit and balance on the Ronin RS2.
I'd rather have a two camera setup with a couple of 1.4 prime lenses...all day easy... because when you're indoors that dreadful feeling that you wished you could have taken that f1.4 lens instead of the 2.8 zoom will always linger then fear creeps in on how many opportunities you can potentially miss on a 2.8...my ISO ceiling/ limit is always at 3200 and I don't know how you can freeze motion with it using a 2.8 lens. Even if theoretically, ISO 6400 is acceptable to you then you could probably miss quite a number of shots with a 2.8 via motion blur and no, Image Stabilization can only save you during few ideal situations...like those "say cheese" moments For video YES! For critcal indoor shoots, NO...HECK NO Totally fine with a 28mm + 50mm combo. Or even a 35mm + 85mm You can buy a used SIGMA ART 1.4 prime for $500-$700, go figure do the math
i feel like f/2.8 in the normal range is just not that remarkable anymore, maybe because of the 28-70 f/2 or maybe because lots of enthusiasts have good lenses that go as wide as f/2.8 now, or maybe because smartphones do a lot more than they could 5 or 10 or 15 years ago. but also, i imagine i would be carrying two bodies, ideally with a standard and a telephoto and maybe a few primes and/or an ultra-wide on-hand, and if i've got a telephoto at f/2.8 then 70-105 overlap isn't benefitting me... unless i'm shooting video, like you said. i would be curious if the 24-105 f/2.8 produces video between 70-105mm that optically looks comparable to a 70-200mm f/2.8 between 70-105mm in the way that cine lenses are often optically matched to each other to make cuts between shots less jarring... but that seems like a niche question to be asking lol
I'm still using the 24-70 2.8 and love it. I do consider the 28-70 at times but, even though it's in the budget, I can't justify it. And if I want a little bit more on the telephoto end, I recently all but ditched my 70-200 2.8 for the 135 2.0. That's been an absolute dream and I got it for $450 on eBay. Definitely beats the $3,000 Canon wants for the 24-105 2.8. I'll stick with what I've got!
Great video - not for me as an amateur, but always interested in hearing how a pro would use a piece of gear. Also, I have a few: Home Alone, Love Actually and Die Hard 😊
Great video, Vanessa. I own the Holy Trinity of RF f2.8 glass. Very happy with that combo. Love my R5. Would consider the RF 28-70 f2. I have found the 15-35 f2.8 to be a very useful lens. Thanks for the content.
Tamron/Samyang 35-150 F2-2.8 for me is versatile enough for wedding and almost half of the price. 35mm for me is wide enough most of time. Unfortunately, this is not available for Canon RF mount. I am Canon shooter from the very start but I'm switching to Sony soon because of lens affordable native selection.
That's hard for me I'm doing anything variable. If it was 2.8 I would say that would be the one but, I don't like anything adjusting my aperture but me. I've jumped up and left Canon sooooo many times just to come back. The lens selection may look cheap because of 3rd party lenses. Best believe they will come to Canon again one day but, not until they have made their money on their big sellers. Business wise this would make sense because once 3rd party is introduced they cut into your sales. I don't want anything 3rd party right now what Canon is putting out is crazy insane good. Just remember the other glass looks cheap but the overall total for the switch over is expensive. Body/bodies/lenses = $$$$$.... I've done it to many times because Canon was taking to long to go mirrorless. Go to your local camera store and rent what you want to switch too. Make sure it's a good fit and you like processing the files.
@@dantecooper646 Third party lenses make the manufacturers more competitive with the quality and price. Sigma/Tamron lenses are getting better and better while Viltrox also introduce their Pro line up 27mm & 75mm F1.2. I already have Sony A7IV for video, I don't need to spend a fortune to buy decent and good quality glasses while my Canon EOS R still using adapted EF glass since most of their RF non-L lenses are garbage. Yes, Tamron/Samyang 35-150 has variable aperture but if you don't want to change your settings, you can lock the aperture to F2.8. Atleast you still have a 1 stop (F2) to wide end that you can use if needed.
I had this same combo, what I found super annoying though is the 16-35 being too wide and not zoom enough for indoors, and the 35-150 being not wide enough for indoors. I want to capture a wide angle shot, then zoom right in and get some close ups/details. Not achievable with either of those lenses. The 24-105 f2.8 seems absolutely perfect.
@@VanessaJoy oh, interesting! I typically don't apply lens correction! I like the characteristics the Canon L lenses usually have. So it doesn't bother you that it's adding pixels to the edges and that your RAW doesn't look the same as what you saw through the viewfinder?
I bought the f2.8 24-105 for natural light, to overcome the indoor shortcomings of the f4 24--105 - it delivered just fine. I've owned a power zoom for a previous Canon lens - worked great for video
Interestingly enough, I've had people on street notice and compliment my 24-105 f/4 a few times. Maybe because people with "real" cameras are less commonplace these days.
Always an honor to be inspired by the excellence that is Vanessa Joy Photography. I have discovered a gem in the photography universe. I will probably buy this lens for my go to lens.
This is clearly a lens meant for videography. I also suspect that the housing will be purposed for the next generation RF 70-200 as it is an internal focusing and zoom body. I am not sure that I like the idea of the lens being heavier.
I shoot almost all my paid work with a 24-105 f/4 and the 70-200 f/2.8. I typically rock two camera bodies, one with the 24-105, the other with the 70-200, then have a backup body and another 24-105 f/4 and a 70-200 f/4 as backups in the bag. I can totally see selling one of the 24-105 f/4s and replacing it with the 24-105 f/2.8. In reality, I'd love to see something like a 28-240 f/2.8 or f/4 that way, it'd just be one lens for 90%+ of paid shooting and I could literally get it down to just two bodies and two lenses for most jobs instead of the 3 bodies and 4 lenses. OK, maybe 3 bodies, 3 lenses, but they'd all be the same lenses.
Well not everyone is a 110lbs weakling 🤓 one might decide it’s the only lens you’re going to shoot with instead of using two cameras and two lenses. In which case it’s lighter…
Thanks for the review Vanessa. I do own the 28-70 and to be honest, I really dislike it. It's heavy and sometimes I miss that extra 4mm I had with my 24-70 when shooting in tight spots. I do not think the 2.0 is that great that makes it worth it. I'd be using the 24-105 primarily for ceremonies (most of my weddings are outdoors) and formals. I plan on testing it during Shutterfest this year and if I like it, I'll 100% trade my 28-70 for this one. Cheers.
I do love my 24-105 f4 for toddlers and kiddos outdoors because they will not hang in a single location or near each other and I'm not a poser. I like them wild and free. Do I like f4? Nooo, low light is a real struggle BUT I regret it every time I shove on a Prime bc for the 1 pic with dreamy background Ive missed 20 other shots. I'm considering this lens to replace that f4. Wish it was f2 and went to 300 😂 but cant have it all, yet, I guess. Holiday movie: Home Alone
I got the RF28-70 in a black friday sales when Canon gave out double cash back . the shop I got it from was selling it £200 cheaper as it was at £2800. so with the cash back at £200 x2 I got is for a nice £2400 which was a steal I know its heavy ( thank one reason for getting the battery grip ) I know it doesnt have IS but the pictures are so beautiful none of that matters. So as much as having the 24-104 range would be great I can not see it replacing the 28-70 I have the 100 macro if I need the little reach but the R5 45 MP I just crop LOL or if a lot more reach change to the 100-500 and oh my the photos at 500mm @ 1.2mtr is a dream
Does Evoto work as a plug in with LR or do you have to export completely and leave the workflow? i.e. when you are done with Evoto edits does it reimport the edited photo back into the LR catalog or is it forever outside of LR unless you manually put it back in? Thank you in advance for any insight you can provide :) -PD
Found your channel for the first time today. Really enjoyed your video and your way of presenting information. I subscribed. I already have the same lens in f4 so I will not probably purchase. I do have the 70-200 and the 15-35 so I am fairly set. Using on a R6 Mark II. Photography for me is fun and not a living. Can't justify the added cost of switching my f4 for this.. Would love it though if I had a purpose. My favorite holiday movie is Christmas Vacation.
I am still team 35mm+85mm on two bodies for wedding photography and throwing on a 20mm or 135mm once a day when needed. it works fine and its f/1.4. but for filming this lens will be a joy to use for many. especially on a rig where you dont want to fiddle around with the whole setup after changing lenses.
Thanks for the review. I love the f4 lens so I am giving this lens serious consideration. But it might not be until the latter part of 2024 before I will be able to afford to pick it up. Still it's in my sights.
I’m actually giving this lens a try for a different reason. I often photograph families around f4 and I find the 24-105 f4 to not be that great a performer fully open. Hoping the $3k f2.8 version will be real strong at f4.
This feels more like a video lens with the weight and features. These days I often use the RF24-70 2.8 and RF 70-200 f4 as my basic setup. Small and flexible. If I want more maybe macro and 100-500 would be included.
@@VanessaJoy so is the RF100mm 2.8, and it’s priced currently at $999 but I feel like 24-105 2.8 was so highly wanted by Canon fanatics, Canon knows their gonna make a lot of sales with this one. Especially given that the 24-105 f4 was the most common used zoom. Even more than most primes.
3:10 does holding the lens by the tripod foot make turning the zoom ring easier?? It looks very uncomfortable and seems just turning the tripod foot upside down would be much more comfortable. just trying to understand why you held it that way.
It’s more comfortable for me because it gets my elbow to my torso easier, which better supports the weight of the camera and lens vs putting all of the weight in my hand/arm
Great review, Vanessa! Very balanced and objective. The huge size of this lens is a turnoff for me as well, but I can see it being perfect for a lot of shooters.
@@PeteCocoPhoto I think they mean you can possibly remove the 70-200 from the equation, especially if you're using an R5. You can get a 168mm FOV in crop mode with this lens.
I can see this as a great lens for video situations (especially on a tripod, shoulder rig or perhaps handheld). Its length is going to make it awkward to balance on a gimbal. With the tripod collar stuck on there, I can easily see this as bothering me for photos. For weddings, I cannot see replacing my 28-70 with this one. Thanks for confirming what I believed when I saw the announcement.
RF 28-70 f/2 price is back to $2799. I was driving listening to your video and when I heard you say it was $500 off, I couldn't wait to check. I'm still saving up for the 28-70 and I can hardly wait! I like watching everything you make for TH-cam! Thank you!
Aw poo the rebates are done!!!! 😭 sorry about that!
I purchased this lens exclusively for sports. It arrived last week and so far I have shot only three basketball games (about 3k photos so far). It is amazing. Tomorrow I will use it for wrestling. This thing for indoor sports on my R3 is brilliant.
Nice!!
The R3 and this lens are ridiculous!!!! The best combo I have ever owned!!!!
I see why the Canon R5 popular and accessories. Great for making posters with models with jewelry or banners at show.
Seems like a great event lens but I was hoping it would aend up as THE travel lens, but it’s way too big for that.
Yes, that was a magical time, just off of Thanksgiving, when Canon put the hot RF lenses on a $500, discount. Those prices didn't last long and didn't come back after Christmas. Did pull the trigger on something myself. Sometimes you just have to go for it.
nice! what did you get?
28-70mm f/2 is still $500 off. the price has stayed down.
@@southbridgeforestHOA I am still seeing $300 off. Where are you seeing the $500 discount still going? Sounds like that might be a good outlet to know about.
@@VanessaJoy
Oh I'm just catching up. I'd been looking at, testing, renting 24-70 options for a couple of years. From Tamron to various Canon iterations. Since video is becoming our lingua franca, IS is more valued in wide angles, but the Canon was better glass at the edges in my testing and some would say slightly faster in AF. So I was stuck. One day I realized a 5D mkIV wasn't keeping up with AF the way I would like in tough sports like girls volleyball, so I bit the bullet for an R4 - actually my wife helped - and the problem was solved: RF version has IS and probably even sharper glass. I thought about buying the f2.0 version that you and many others love, but I was having trouble imagining a battery slinging that much glass around that fast for sports. Five hours of chasing basketball with the 24-70 and a 70-200 leaves my recently sprained shoulder a little sore, and hands feeling well-used (but happy) so it's probably for the best that I don't own the heavier f2.0. (All of which leaves me with a certain amount of admiration for the shift a wedding photographer pulls.) R4 refurbs dipped low there for a day or two around the same time. So I did a lot of crash studying. My theory is that Canon needed to do some market testing at this time.
I preordered this lens from Canon USA the night it was announced and have the production lens. No complaints from me except the lack of lens profile in DXO PureRAW. Adobe has one and it works well at 24mm but has a weird pixel smearing effect around the edges at other focal lengths. I’m sure it will get fixed and may be specific to the Mac OS based software. Other than that, it’s sharp and fast… 🤷🏻♂️
sharp and fast is nice!
One thing I forgot to mention was that I was surprised that my R5 didn’t need a firmware update to enable the use of the aperture ring. They must have included support for the feature in an earlier firmware update. 👍🏻. For video work it has the feel of a nice cinema lens.
I would love the lens for water photography inside a housing, especially with the internal zoom and that range. I wouldn't love it for a wedding.
Ooooo fun!
Nice one! F2.8 is not F1.2 though. I rather keep my RF 50 1.2 and zoom with my legs with the bonus of having to be more creative.
Yeah 1.2 is just something special
Looks like an outstanding lens. As for favorite holiday movie . . . Love Actually.
haha have you seen the love actually "summary" where the guy points out how horrible it really is?
@@VanessaJoy No I don't think I have seen that critique. I'm sure it's not everyone's cup of tea, but I find the British humor hard to resist. Cheers!
Do you notice more of a difference between F1.2 and F2.0 OR F2.8 and F2.0?
You mentioned there being a big difference between F2.8 and F2.0 on the RF 28 to 70 mm, so that’s a one spot difference. A prime lens being F1.2 to F1.4 is a one stop + difference from F2.0… so is that a big difference as well?
Oooo this is a GREAT question. I would say that I personally probably wouldn’t notice the difference between 1.2 to 2 nearly as much as 2 to 2.8
If you are using an R5 then just continue using the 28-70 f2 and shoot APS-C crop for 70-112.
Yep, you can do that. Still missing 24-27mm, though. You could use this lens in crop mode and get 24-168, which would trump the Tamron 35-150 people like to say is "better."
Definitely an option
Ok, I am definitely late, but I agree: I'll go with the Family Man, too!
Great lens by the way (I love my 24-105 f4 for its versatility), but if I had the money I would go for the 28-70 f2 for the prime look. 😋
Family man is so good!!
I am not a great fan of N. Cage, to be honest, but that movie is great 😍. Aaaaaand Tea Leoni....well..... 🥰@@VanessaJoy
Just watched this. My favorite holiday movie is 'Holiday' ;))
❤️
Informative review, even with the limited setting. Thanks.
Glad it was helpful!
very nice video. I can't find a link to that editing program. could you send it to me? thank you ;)
evoto.ai/c/VanessaJoyVideo
I❤ 35/105mm f4
Looks like a cool lens but since I already have the 28-70 and 70-200, I really don’t see the need. I’d much rather get a 35mm 1.2L.
Holiday movies? I’m a Big Lebowski little achiever so... :) and When Harry Met Sally… I’d also include Serendipity but Kate Beckinsale blocked me on Instagram LMAO.
Ahhh I ADORE When harry met sally. I watch it all the time
I understand that this lens features a lot for videographers, but I wish they had made it simpler and put it closer to the f/4 version to make it more affordable. For what this lens offers I would love to have it while travelling. But for now I will play the waiting game and see if Sigma and Tamron will finally be allowed to join the RF party. Tamron's 35-150mm f/2 - 2.8 would be my favourite pick, even compared to this.
Well, you have the f/4 version, which will probably always exist, so this one has to be next level. If you want a more affordable, similar f/2.8 range with better IQ than the 24-105 f/4, there's the 24-70 f/2.8 (remember that one LOL).
@@DanielFazzari but f/4 will never look like 2.8 and 24-70 is a lot less focal length than 105 ;-)
@@6rimR3ap3r then you buy this one. 😉
@@quantumfusion5957 because I don't have to. It would be convenient, yes, but not necessary.
The Santa Clause. Great video as always!
Such a good one!!!
what is the flash on your camera in this video?? thanks
It was a Westcott strobe
You should know you can you any lens hello
??
I guess it's quite heavy to carry all day on a wedding. It's also very expensive for amateurs.
definitely heavy - but thats ok as long as you love the output.
On weddings I prefer my f1.4 lenses. An f2.8 lens would let in 4x less light@@VanessaJoy
Great review in that it convinced me that I have absolutely no need for this lens due to size, weight, and cost. It doesn't tell with the way I shoot and I am not inspired by the output.
I'll just wait till a 3rd party version of this lens comes out or wait for the price to drop $500 in a few years like the 28-70mm f/2 price has dropped. It is really cool to see canon coming out with these awesome new lenses, but the price is ridiculous.
The 28-70 is back to $3099 USD, and it's 5 years old now. You might be waiting for a while.
@@DanielFazzari doubt it, take a class on bargain hunting.
@southbridgeforest7141 might want to take a class on being polite. I was simply pointing out a fact.
Ya vanessa
movie =Smokey and the Bandit
Nice!!
The price is too much, it's not worth it. I am a videographer and I prefer my sigma 24-70 2.8. which is only worth $1,200
hmmm I wouldn't compare that lens with this one. 70-105 is a big range add on
are you sure microphone is big enough LOL
Are you sure this comment is funny enough?
Your so beautiful
Aw thank you ❤️
Die Hard!
haha yes!!!!
@VanessaJoy Love your perspectives. Keep up the good work!
I have this new 24-105/2.8L. Awesome lens for my use and needs, which is the reason I bought it. At least 90% of my work can be done with this lens. From now on, I only bring extra lenses if I know I need those for some special use. Otherwise I can just go with one lens, and that is truly something!
Amazing!!!
Hate to say it, but all of the pics you show in the last min, would have looked so much better @ tighter dof, eg @ f1.2 or f1.4 - to knock out that distracting background, imo.
The classic combos are the 24-70 and 70-200, and the tog will often need a prime for the day also and a lighter wider lens for the reception shots (as you point out). So the idea here with this lens is to replace the 24-70 AND 70-200 freeing up the other camera body to a single prime. Less lens swapping, less necessity for a carry on bag, two bodies, done. If I had the money I would entertain this set up, running with a 24-105/2.8 and a 50/1.4 sounds superb (with a fast 24 in the back pocket). Or you could do a 28-70/2 and a fast 135. Canon are killing it, congrats.
That they are! Lenses have always been a strength of theirs
I love my 28-70 f2. It has a certain…”look”. Portraits, travel, food, events…my R5-f2 pair is my go-to companion. I’ll be happily skipping the amazing but not-for-me 24-105 f2.8. Thanks for confirming this for me!
Right? Just something about that look for sure!
I predict a video ~9 months from now titled "Why I was wrong about the RF 24-105 f/2.8"....signed a RF 24-105 f/2.8 owner. :) .... and I go classic...It's a Wonderful Life or Scrooge (Albert Finney).
lol maybe!! Afterall I haven't had the chance to use it on a wedding or at a concert where I think it would really shine
Hi Vanessa, I enjoyed watching your video (a few times now). I see lots of complaints about size/weight/price in the comments, here and elsewhere. These are the same grumblings the 28-70 had when it first came out. After some time passed, and more people used the 28-70, it's now very well revered, myself included. This new 24-105 is a new direction Canon is going with hybrid lenses, as it's clearly designed for video and photography use. I think some people need to understand this, as many complaining comments are only thinking of it for photography. Personally, I am one of those that think this is a "one and done" lens for most applications. However, I do like my 28-70 very much, and the f/2 is the only edge I'd say it has over the 24-105. I think as this new 24-105 gets more widespread use, it will surpass the "too big/heavy/expensive" complaints and become a new standard in - standard zooms!
Yeah the heavy aspect I think we all get over once we use those lenses and see how magical they are 😂
When you consider you can get away with just using this lens and crop mode (R5, maybe not R6 etc) then it makes sense. If you’re going out with two two cameras and two lenses, that’s heavy…
I wonder if it's possible to create a 28-105 f2.0 lens now :) probably would be way to heavy
I was planning to replace my EF 24-70 f/2.8 with the RF version. In researching, I saw the 28-70 f/2.0 and then the 24-105 f/2.8, but initially didn’t want to spend the extra money. Then as I thought about it, at that price it isn’t that much more and like the idea of extra reach for versatility. I mainly photograph roller derby and don’t feel I need the f/2.0 even though it would be nice. I also have the EF 70-200 f/2.8. Thank you for your review, I enjoy your videos.
I used the 28-70 f2, hated it. I do video though also at just about every job I do, it doesn’t cut it for me.
I agree that it would be great for video. I have the ef F4 version and it’s one of my favorites for an all around lens. I would rather invest in the 28-70 for portrait use. Another excellent video.
Totally agree!
I like the fact that you get 4 focal lengths in one all at 2.8 but that 3k price tag though? Nope, that's what would steer me away from this lens. I'm sure their are other alternatives for less.
Yup, never going to give up the 28-70. Tried to like my original 24-104 F4. Used it exactly once, then sold it.
Yeah the f4 version is a totally different story too
I shoot with the RF 24-105 F4.0 and the RF 70-200 2.8 at weddings. Two of the greatest lenses I have ever used. For Bokeh, I think compression matters, and I won't shoot a bokeh with a wide Fstop below 85mm. I use my 70-200 2.8 for portraits on or above 85MM, 105MM, 135MM and 200MM. But normally I like shooting in lower Fstops to retain as much retail and sharpness as possible for post production which explains why I regard the f4.0 version of the 24-105 highly.
A few years back, I tried photographing a martial arts exam with a 24 to 105 f4, indoors with inconsistent light. The results were not good. I may be getting better as a photographer and the use of a full frame R camera, noise reduction in lightroom makes up for a lot. I cannot change locations, but those testing can move out further than 105 ideally. I would have loved this lens then, paired with a R7, it might solve my lack of the perfect lens. Need to try the R7 with the 24 to 105 f4. For an event where I am mobile, the 28 to 70 f2 just cannot be beat. A 35 to 150 might be ideal for my outlier usecase. A martial arts tournament is best served by a 70 to 200, these are in large gyms. The occasional 135f2 can create something truly special. Long story short, I would have loved an EF version of this lens years ago, i do not think it will make my work stand out, I think that is why Canon made it video focused.
hard to beat that f2
I own that 24-105 f4 + r7 combo and I honestly love it.
So do you think the 24-105 f2.8 or 28-70 f/2 for martial arts tournaments? I’m literally trading all my gear to get one of these to photograph my kids testing and tournaments. And also their indoor school events. R6Mii is the body.
@@renees8262 First, I would slow down a bit, before spending that much. First determined what focal length you need for each event. Second be very precise in your use of depth of field. Martial arts tournaments, I have attended are in gyms, with 4 to 8 matt rings, and the ability to move in the stands and between the rings. For my experience the 70 to 200 focal length is the best. I am tall enough to shoot over most people. If your tournament setup is different, then pick the right range. 70 to 200 works for basketball in the stands, and ok for soccer. For testing, I could really use a 20mm to 135mm. I know that does not exist. For testing I must sit i. A single location and I do not know where my daughter will be until testing starts. I randomly pick the 24 to 70 f2.8 or the 24 to 105 f4. The noise reduction in lightroom has made my concerns about noise a non issue for me. Back to the depth of field issue. Sparring at F4 provides more flexibility in getting both students in focus, f2.8 and f2 will only get one student in focus. There are those moments when both students are on the same plane of focus, and there are also times, where you just want your child’s face in focus. Both the 24 to 70 and 70 to 200 are fast focusing lenses. Depth of field is f stop, focal length and distance, not all of these are under your control during certain sports. Wedding receptions the 28 to 70 is wonderful, but there is time to compose an image.
@@jeffreyhill4705wow this is so helpful!! Screenshot the whole message so I can think through it. I only get one of these lens for now so I definitely will use it as my guide to think through!! THANK YOU!!
Thought about getting this lens already have the trinity of 2.8 and sometimes i wish i had the reach of 105 but I bought the 85 1.2 cause that lens is just plain insane bokeh.
Being around weddings would make me sick quite quickly.
By the way... Wouldn't it be great if we were celebrating their divorces in the same way ?
50% is lying about the 'until death do us part' so it would be a huge market !
😂
I really appreciate the comparison and callout between this and the 28-70. I shoot a lot of Volleyball (action/portrait) and less but a lot of birds / wildlife. I started with the R6 and the 24-105 f4 Kit; however, I’m planning to upgrade to the R5ii this year and I’m trying to decide between this lense, 28-70 f2, or 24-70 f2.8 (Volleyball is mostly 35-70mm from the net). With your experience on the R5ii on both this and the 28-70, I’m curious which one is faster for autofocus or if one outperformances the other with the eye focus. I realize that wedding and sport is probably quite different as far as speed is concerned; the R6 has struggled to keep up when shooting at f2.8 (roughly 50% miss on the 70-200 @ f2.8) so I’ve been using f4 a lot. However the new AI Volleyball focus and eye tracking focus (R5) has me really wanting to shoot wide open; indoor sports is typically low light and I’m having to use denoising a lot at f4. Even on an overbuilt editing rig it is slowing down process flow quite a bit, especially if I have to use AI denoising in LR. I’m leaning toward the 28-70 since I tend to agree that it can replace primes in the bag, but I’m not sure if even the R5 can keep up with high speed shooting at f2; thus the question about focus speed. (I could probably also be more efficient as a photographer, don’t want to just blame the kit)
The R5 ii will be a dramatic improvement over the R6 - I don’t think the combo with either of those lenses will show any sign of lagging or that low of an accuracy rate. I don’t think you’ll notice that one is faster than the other either. Both around the same IMO
@@VanessaJoy Great! Thanks for the response
Hello, will this lens goes well with Canon R7? Please review it on R7🙏😊
I don’t see why not ☺️ it’ll just have a crop factor of 1.6 so it’ll be a bit more zoomed in
@@VanessaJoy okay thank you so much, waiting for your video 🙏😊 please please review it on R7 Body, will appreciate it 🙏
For wedding I would get two bodies with two prime lenses.
Has anyone ever mentioned that you mispronounce the word videographer? Not tying to be a dick - don't know if English is a 2nd language for you or its a regional thing. You're adding an extra syllable.
Yeah, people tell me that all the time but it’s just how I say it subconsciously and I’m OK with it 🤷🏻♀️
@@VanessaJoy Cool. I'm a cinematographer but sometimes I moonlight as a photo-ographer. Just got the 24-105 f2.8 a little bit after watching your review. Bought a refurb directly from Canon Sales - saved $400 plus they honored my tax exempt status, plus free shipping, so it was a hell of a deal. 1st 2 shoots with it this week on my R6 and it was a dream. Can't wait to get my Canon C400 to shoot some video with this lens. I never really liked shooting with my EF 24-105 f/4 L IS USM II. Zoom action always felt clunky. Manual focus always felt like a guess... just a blah lens. But this one rocks so far. It is a little heavy, especially with a speedlight on the camera as well... could feel it in my wrist at the end of the day. Overall I recommend this piece of glass for sure. Also this lens plus the Canon R6 still fit and balance on the Ronin RS2.
Love your video ❤❤
I am just like you.
My trinity is
RF 15 -35 f2.8
RF 28-70 f2.0
RF 70-200 f4.0
Love it!
@@VanessaJoy thank you. This video shoot on RF 85mm 1.2? It's amazingly sharp. Rarely seen so sharp in you tube🔥
I'd rather have a two camera setup with a couple of 1.4 prime lenses...all day easy... because when you're indoors that dreadful feeling that you wished you could have taken that f1.4 lens instead of the 2.8 zoom will always linger then fear creeps in on how many opportunities you can potentially miss on a 2.8...my ISO ceiling/ limit is always at 3200 and I don't know how you can freeze motion with it using a 2.8 lens. Even if theoretically, ISO 6400 is acceptable to you then you could probably miss quite a number of shots with a 2.8 via motion blur and no, Image Stabilization can only save you during few ideal situations...like those "say cheese" moments
For video YES! For critcal indoor shoots, NO...HECK NO
Totally fine with a 28mm + 50mm combo. Or even a 35mm + 85mm
You can buy a used SIGMA ART 1.4 prime for $500-$700, go figure do the math
Love your thought process on this
Diehard... best Christmas movie ever. 🙂
i feel like f/2.8 in the normal range is just not that remarkable anymore, maybe because of the 28-70 f/2 or maybe because lots of enthusiasts have good lenses that go as wide as f/2.8 now, or maybe because smartphones do a lot more than they could 5 or 10 or 15 years ago.
but also, i imagine i would be carrying two bodies, ideally with a standard and a telephoto and maybe a few primes and/or an ultra-wide on-hand, and if i've got a telephoto at f/2.8 then 70-105 overlap isn't benefitting me... unless i'm shooting video, like you said.
i would be curious if the 24-105 f/2.8 produces video between 70-105mm that optically looks comparable to a 70-200mm f/2.8 between 70-105mm in the way that cine lenses are often optically matched to each other to make cuts between shots less jarring... but that seems like a niche question to be asking lol
good point!
I'm still using the 24-70 2.8 and love it. I do consider the 28-70 at times but, even though it's in the budget, I can't justify it. And if I want a little bit more on the telephoto end, I recently all but ditched my 70-200 2.8 for the 135 2.0. That's been an absolute dream and I got it for $450 on eBay. Definitely beats the $3,000 Canon wants for the 24-105 2.8. I'll stick with what I've got!
The 135 is a gem!!
Great video - not for me as an amateur, but always interested in hearing how a pro would use a piece of gear. Also, I have a few: Home Alone, Love Actually and Die Hard 😊
Haha home alone for sure!
Great video, Vanessa. I own the Holy Trinity of RF f2.8 glass. Very happy with that combo. Love my R5. Would consider the RF 28-70 f2. I have found the 15-35 f2.8 to be a very useful lens. Thanks for the content.
Very nice!
Tamron/Samyang 35-150 F2-2.8 for me is versatile enough for wedding and almost half of the price. 35mm for me is wide enough most of time. Unfortunately, this is not available for Canon RF mount. I am Canon shooter from the very start but I'm switching to Sony soon because of lens affordable native selection.
That's hard for me I'm doing anything variable. If it was 2.8 I would say that would be the one but, I don't like anything adjusting my aperture but me. I've jumped up and left Canon sooooo many times just to come back. The lens selection may look cheap because of 3rd party lenses. Best believe they will come to Canon again one day but, not until they have made their money on their big sellers. Business wise this would make sense because once 3rd party is introduced they cut into your sales. I don't want anything 3rd party right now what Canon is putting out is crazy insane good. Just remember the other glass looks cheap but the overall total for the switch over is expensive. Body/bodies/lenses = $$$$$.... I've done it to many times because Canon was taking to long to go mirrorless. Go to your local camera store and rent what you want to switch too. Make sure it's a good fit and you like processing the files.
@@dantecooper646 Third party lenses make the manufacturers more competitive with the quality and price. Sigma/Tamron lenses are getting better and better while Viltrox also introduce their Pro line up 27mm & 75mm F1.2.
I already have Sony A7IV for video, I don't need to spend a fortune to buy decent and good quality glasses while my Canon EOS R still using adapted EF glass since most of their RF non-L lenses are garbage.
Yes, Tamron/Samyang 35-150 has variable aperture but if you don't want to change your settings, you can lock the aperture to F2.8. Atleast you still have a 1 stop (F2) to wide end that you can use if needed.
On the Sony side there are 16-35 and 35-150, which I think is the most versatile duo for event and wedding.
I had this same combo, what I found super annoying though is the 16-35 being too wide and not zoom enough for indoors, and the 35-150 being not wide enough for indoors. I want to capture a wide angle shot, then zoom right in and get some close ups/details. Not achievable with either of those lenses. The 24-105 f2.8 seems absolutely perfect.
Die Hard is my favourite holiday movie - thank you for such a good review and for your honesty....
My pleasure 😇
Why do so many people say "video-ographer?". We're not photo-ographers and they're not video-ographers
What are they?
Videographer is a word. That’s how you pronounce it. 🤷🏻♀️
Do you know the B&H and Allen's Camera links for the gear used in this video?
No but I’m sure they have the lens if you search their website
What are your thoughts regarding the crazy distortion that has to be corrected in post?
I mean… I just apply Lightroom’s lens calibration to every photo when I edit so I really don’t see it ever
@@VanessaJoy oh, interesting! I typically don't apply lens correction! I like the characteristics the Canon L lenses usually have.
So it doesn't bother you that it's adding pixels to the edges and that your RAW doesn't look the same as what you saw through the viewfinder?
Purchased my 28-70 F2 with the $500 dollars off . Zero regrets at all . Love love love it
lucky!!!
@aglive07 I also have the 28-70 f2 and love it! It replaced the 50mm I used to have.
dommage que ça soit en anglais; j'aurais bien voulu savoir, pourquoi pas pour les marriages?
I think a lot of photographers will like it for weddings, just not for me
@@VanessaJoy OK, but why not ? Heavy ? With somes Word explain 😉
I bought the f2.8 24-105 for natural light, to overcome the indoor shortcomings of the f4 24--105 - it delivered just fine. I've owned a power zoom for a previous Canon lens - worked great for video
Very nice!
Fuck, that lens is so big. Only useful if you're shooting events. It'll be awkward as hell walking around wth that thing on the street.
Haha yeah not really an inconspicuous lens
Interestingly enough, I've had people on street notice and compliment my 24-105 f/4 a few times. Maybe because people with "real" cameras are less commonplace these days.
@@DanielFazzari Yeah, but the f/4 version doesn't look as ridiculous as the one in the video.
Always an honor to be inspired by the excellence that is Vanessa Joy Photography. I have discovered a gem in the photography universe. I will probably buy this lens for my go to lens.
Aw thank you! And have fun with it!
Thanks for the awesome review Vanessa! Pretty cool lens but I'll stick with my 28-70mm f2, the extra stop makes a huge difference
Definitely my preference rn ☺️
This is clearly a lens meant for videography. I also suspect that the housing will be purposed for the next generation RF 70-200 as it is an internal focusing and zoom body. I am not sure that I like the idea of the lens being heavier.
Hi, is it really good for canon eos r7?
Yes but that’s a cropped sensor camera so just know it’ll look a bit closer than the examples here
I shoot almost all my paid work with a 24-105 f/4 and the 70-200 f/2.8. I typically rock two camera bodies, one with the 24-105, the other with the 70-200, then have a backup body and another 24-105 f/4 and a 70-200 f/4 as backups in the bag. I can totally see selling one of the 24-105 f/4s and replacing it with the 24-105 f/2.8. In reality, I'd love to see something like a 28-240 f/2.8 or f/4 that way, it'd just be one lens for 90%+ of paid shooting and I could literally get it down to just two bodies and two lenses for most jobs instead of the 3 bodies and 4 lenses. OK, maybe 3 bodies, 3 lenses, but they'd all be the same lenses.
It's a Wonderful Life - Favorite Holiday Movie
haven't watched that one yet!
Hit the gym....😀 Then you can hold it up
I think I’m good dude 😜:Fitness Journey VLOG
th-cam.com/video/XV7ltGM0iFs/w-d-xo.html
Well not everyone is a 110lbs weakling 🤓 one might decide it’s the only lens you’re going to shoot with instead of using two cameras and two lenses. In which case it’s lighter…
Can someone please tell Nikon to make this lens.
I know Nikon has the 35-150mm f2-2.8 by Tamron
Favorite holliday movie is Die Hard.
Yassssss
I didn't know Hilary Swank is a professional photographer?
Haha thx
Vanessa's better looking ;-)
@@DanielFazzari haha 😂 thanks
Looks like a great lens. Looks like a hit.
It is!
Love Actually. Xmas movie.
Yes!! Give me the kid with his stepdad all day
*KILLJOY HAS ENTERED THE CHAT* ....
😂
Thanks for the review Vanessa. I do own the 28-70 and to be honest, I really dislike it. It's heavy and sometimes I miss that extra 4mm I had with my 24-70 when shooting in tight spots. I do not think the 2.0 is that great that makes it worth it. I'd be using the 24-105 primarily for ceremonies (most of my weddings are outdoors) and formals. I plan on testing it during Shutterfest this year and if I like it, I'll 100% trade my 28-70 for this one. Cheers.
I definitely think ppl either love or hate both of those lenses. It’s so subjective!
Die Hard, best holiday movie.
Haha it’s inthe lead
I do love my 24-105 f4 for toddlers and kiddos outdoors because they will not hang in a single location or near each other and I'm not a poser. I like them wild and free. Do I like f4? Nooo, low light is a real struggle BUT I regret it every time I shove on a Prime bc for the 1 pic with dreamy background Ive missed 20 other shots. I'm considering this lens to replace that f4. Wish it was f2 and went to 300 😂 but cant have it all, yet, I guess. Holiday movie: Home Alone
Haha yeah I just need a 24-300 f2 and we’ll be good
I got the RF28-70 in a black friday sales when Canon gave out double cash back . the shop I got it from was selling it £200 cheaper as it was at £2800. so with the cash back at £200 x2 I got is for a nice £2400 which was a steal I know its heavy ( thank one reason for getting the battery grip ) I know it doesnt have IS but the pictures are so beautiful none of that matters.
So as much as having the 24-104 range would be great I can not see it replacing the 28-70 I have the 100 macro if I need the little reach but the R5 45 MP I just crop LOL or if a lot more reach change to the 100-500 and oh my the photos at 500mm @ 1.2mtr is a dream
Nice!!
Does Evoto work as a plug in with LR or do you have to export completely and leave the workflow? i.e. when you are done with Evoto edits does it reimport the edited photo back into the LR catalog or is it forever outside of LR unless you manually put it back in?
Thank you in advance for any insight you can provide :)
-PD
No it’s stand alone but that’s a great suggestion!
Found your channel for the first time today. Really enjoyed your video and your way of presenting information. I subscribed. I already have the same lens in f4 so I will not probably purchase. I do have the 70-200 and the 15-35 so I am fairly set. Using on a R6 Mark II. Photography for me is fun and not a living. Can't justify the added cost of switching my f4 for this.. Would love it though if I had a purpose. My favorite holiday movie is Christmas Vacation.
Thanks so much! So glad you’re here to stay ☺️ haha I rewatched Christmas vacation this year!
I am still team 35mm+85mm on two bodies for wedding photography and throwing on a 20mm or 135mm once a day when needed. it works fine and its f/1.4.
but for filming this lens will be a joy to use for many. especially on a rig where you dont want to fiddle around with the whole setup after changing lenses.
Nice!
I used it at a wedding and loved it. It gets rid of the need for 2 cameras in a lot of situations.. You will miss the prime look though
Good to know!
Favorite Holiday Movie ... "White Christmas" (1954, Bing Crosby, Danny Kaye, Vera Ellen & Rosemary Clooney)
Thx for watching to the end!
Thanks for the review. I love the f4 lens so I am giving this lens serious consideration. But it might not be until the latter part of 2024 before I will be able to afford to pick it up. Still it's in my sights.
Yeah if you loved the f4, this one will be a dream for you
I think the older lens is alright for studio work but the new one looks great at 2.8 for wedding or night photography with some product shots.
Agreed
I’m actually giving this lens a try for a different reason. I often photograph families around f4 and I find the 24-105 f4 to not be that great a performer fully open. Hoping the $3k f2.8 version will be real strong at f4.
Ah interesting!
This feels more like a video lens with the weight and features. These days I often use the RF24-70 2.8 and RF 70-200 f4 as my basic setup. Small and flexible. If I want more maybe macro and 100-500 would be included.
Nice setup!
This is long overdue but $3k? 😬
L series glass
@@VanessaJoy so is the RF100mm 2.8, and it’s priced currently at $999 but I feel like 24-105 2.8 was so highly wanted by Canon fanatics, Canon knows their gonna make a lot of sales with this one. Especially given that the 24-105 f4 was the most common used zoom. Even more than most primes.
@@qh_ent a 24-105 f/2.8 has been desired by every brand of camera owner, not just Canon.
3:10 does holding the lens by the tripod foot make turning the zoom ring easier?? It looks very uncomfortable and seems just turning the tripod foot upside down would be much more comfortable. just trying to understand why you held it that way.
It’s more comfortable for me because it gets my elbow to my torso easier, which better supports the weight of the camera and lens vs putting all of the weight in my hand/arm
how ,bout that declick!?
??
@@VanessaJoy the beautiful smooth iris ring for video.
Allen's Camera in Philly, hmmm that place sounds awfully fro-milliar... See anyone you knew there?
Haha no but Fro did help get me the gig being the nice person he is
Subscribed (and. I follow you on Instagram for quite some time too)! I have the RF f4 24-105 and it is good enough for me (and cheaper too)!
Thanks for the sub! Appreciate you! That lens is a workhorse for sure
Great review, Vanessa! Very balanced and objective. The huge size of this lens is a turnoff for me as well, but I can see it being perfect for a lot of shooters.
Thanks for watching Pete!
Wedding shooters often use a 70-200 2.8 and another body and lens. One body, one 70-200 sized lens… not so bad now?
@@stubones One camera with a 24-70 and another with a 70-200 is very common. I don't think I'm following your comment tho
@@PeteCocoPhoto I think they mean you can possibly remove the 70-200 from the equation, especially if you're using an R5. You can get a 168mm FOV in crop mode with this lens.
Elf
nice!!
I can see this as a great lens for video situations (especially on a tripod, shoulder rig or perhaps handheld). Its length is going to make it awkward to balance on a gimbal. With the tripod collar stuck on there, I can easily see this as bothering me for photos. For weddings, I cannot see replacing my 28-70 with this one. Thanks for confirming what I believed when I saw the announcement.
Yeah no gimbal for sure but killer for video for sure