@@cameralabs yes just to make sure... I`m sorry believe me it`a necessary I have had problems for not confirming information before even though it seems obvious...
Honestly, I’m impressed that there is a mid-range with a 2.8 aperture, 28-70 zoom that has image stabilization. As Gordon points out in the review that the 24-70 f/2.8 and 28-70 f/2 L lenses have far better build quality and image quality, but you’re paying 2-3x for much heavier lenses. I recently picked up the 24-70 f/2.8 L IS, and it’s an amazing lens. However if this lens existed last fall, I might have picked this up. (I don’t make a living from photography, so one’s mileage will vary.)
so I see today is the day of releasing the videos for this lens. Good to see that Canon does promote its lenses through TH-camrs as any lens or camera from Sony or Lumix gets muuuuch more attention than Canon's
@@blaspayri Sony gets more promotion because they invest in a LOT of review samples that they hand out to a lot of reviewers and influencers. So when a new Sony product is announced, you'll see a video by almost every camera youtuber. This is great for Sony, but I feel as a reviewer, your video can easily be lost in the crowd. Canon has way fewer review samples, so is more selective about who they go to.
Love my R8, it’s a great camera for me but the new RF are insanely expensive. I have stuck with the adapted EF lenses for the time being due to pricing. For a third of the price you can get a used a 24-70 2.8 which, although heavier, is am sure would rival image quality? I still use my 24-105 f4. £200 for a really good lens and wider. I do hope Canon license third parties for the Full frame RF mount! Great review; thankyou!
This is an interesting concept. Lot to like, and a lot that’s not ideal. I worry what this means for the line… it feels like they need many more lenses of this design language (non-L, weather resistant, smart compromises on range) to fill out the lineup. Fearful they won’t let third party help on full frame and instead we’ll continue waiting as they slowly roll out similar mid-range options themselves.
@@DanYosua This lens is a very strong indication that Canon won’t be opening up the RF mount to third parties - they’ve decided to fill the mid-range gap themselves - and they certainly won’t want to be undercut by 40%.
1 stop faster? that is twice the amount of light which makes a huge difference in low light. It's why the 28-70 f2 is the unicorn it is. It's my default lens in a 1-camera or 2-camera event setup (85 1.2 is the other lens for a 2-camera setup)).
I am sold. While I have the 28-70 f2 L, it is not a lens I use outside of professional work. Back then I purchased it for $3000. It is big and heavy with a 95 filter element. I have had a near miss or two with it. The Canon RF mount biggest problem is affordable glass. This is a step in the right direction
i actually see this as a perfect companion to the 28-70 f2. the big one for weddings etc. where it counts and the small one for video, smaller family shoots etc. - i am sold as well.
The issue with Canon’s closed mount (and in ways Nikon too, though to a lesser degree especially after the RED acquisition) is that Canon does not offer something significantly better nor differentiated from the other brands. Faster than F4, F2.8 zooms are no longer unique to Canon. And the competition often does it either better and/or cheaper. This 28-70 seems like a good product offering but also demonstrates perhaps why Canon has imposed a blockade. The blockade is hurting Canon’s brand image, which is arguably the most valuable thing any company owns. It’s a losing game that Canon’s playing. IMO Canon has two better plays: open the mount completely so that there can be a range of third party lenses that would make RF mount, the R cameras either more viable as consideration or just more attractive. It’s no secret that customers look to E mount because it’s open. The second option is to officially partner with select third party manufacturers. The primary two being Sigma and Tamron. Work out a deal such that they can make RF versions of their FF lenses without lock outs (like what Sony does with their 15 fps limit) with Canon’s support. These RF versions are optimised and fully compatible with R cameras just as Canon lenses are. APSC Sigma RF lenses have been priced higher than the E mount equivalents; the premium can remain if indeed the RF variants are fully optimised and not just a mount swop. a vibrant mount will only do Canon good. The R5II, C80 while not revolutionary and without their issues are good products nonetheless. Bringing third party FF into the fold to bolster momentum for this gen would be beneficial. IMO the camera industry needs to no longer see each other as the “problem”. The real “enemy” are the software companies like Adobe, OpenAI and companies like Nvidia. If and when they completely erode the pro imaging market (which is already happening and no longer theoretical), the customer base for high performance products will drop off. Switching to consumer isn’t that easy, it’s already the terrain of the smartphone brands and companies. Prosumer compacts remain a niche and possibly a fad despite the surge in popularity. The big win the camera industry needs to go for as a collective is to keep the interest in lens based imaging alive and possibly thriving even when there’s an option to generate images for pennies on the dime at speed. Not settling for the petty fighting over scraps left over by the software onslaught
Just sold my RF 24-70 L for the new RF 35 L...so this will be perfect on days where a prime isn't enough but not overly committed to the L series zooms.
How do you feel about the 35mm f/1.4's swirly bokeh? I think it's a little too much for me. I want to make the switch over to full frame at some point and this 28-70mm f/2.8 is definitely swaying me to go sooner than later.
I’m currently deciding between the 28-70mm f/2.8 and the 24-70mm f/2.8 L for travel and portrait photography. Up until now, I’ve been using the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II EF and have been really happy with it, but it’s a bit cumbersome for travel. I used to rely on my nifty fifty while traveling, but unfortunately, it broke, and Canon can’t repair it. In a way, it’s a blessing because I’ve always wanted a mid-range zoom lens with superior image quality. I’ve seen plenty of reviews for the 24-70mm, but I can’t seem to find any detailed comparisons between the new 28-70mm f/2.8 and the 24-70mm. I know the 24-70mm L series lens has an edge in terms of build and quality, but I’m curious if it’s worth the extra price and weight. Would love your thoughts on this!
A 2.8 zoom under $1200 and that’s first party is pretty wild, good work Canon! Opening the RF mount(full frame) would still be better though. Would give their engineers more time to make some sweet L series glass while third party can focus on these kinds of RF lenses
@@inputusernamehere6331 That's true, and I don't know why the 3rd-parties have done that (apart from the idea that more people may own Canon crop sensors than full-frame), but I presumed that the entire mount was opened up even if full-frame 3rd-party options are coming later.
I’m guessing (hoping?) they will sell this bundled as a kit lens at a ~$300 discount off of the MSRP. Tamron 28-75 is $900 ($600 used) Image stabilization looks really good though. Is still probably worth buying if you’re on canon
The corners did look pretty good, at least in that test shot. The comparison in my head is the new Sony 24-50/2.8 G. Two different approaches to an f/2.8 standard zoom that compromises on zoom range to add lightness, both actually about the same price. Sony has a nicer build, but both focal lengths have advantages. Sony is less of a do-it-all lens, but probably a nicer lens to pair with an 85mm prime or telephoto zoom.
I am buying lenses from RF system this is a an intelligent lens for Touristic work, I do a lot of Stock, this is a very good approach to not carry the more expensive lenses and not carry the cheapest ones on travel shots, great!
Super happy with the 24-70 2.8, but I like the idea of Canon weather sealing non-L lenses. Sold all non-L glass because of this missing feature. So, even though I'm not interested in the 28-70 2.8 in particular, who knows, maybe Canon can surprise me with some fun non-L glass in the future. That'd be amazing.
Looks like a great lens option! I think you said this is the most expensive non-L RF lens, but the 200-800 is pricier (and, the only non-L to come with a hood). I like that Canon finally came out with a fast constant aperature lens that fills the gap between the kit lenses, and the pricier L lenses. I’ve used the 28-70 F2 for wedding (on a R7 yet), and it was fantastic - but too heavy as an everyday lens. My experience with Tamron lenses, I personally wouldn’t even consider even if it was offered in RF mount. I know I can rely on Canon (Sigma has been pretty good too) for accurate AF. At just over a lb, this will be a great lens for travel with both APSC and FF cameras, can’t wait to try it out! Thanks again for the quick review!!
@@tonys2957 If that doesn't matter, then why does the L-series look better? Let them make cheap lenses beautiful, and let the L-series look like this new 28-70. There's no difference, right?
@@EdvardKALEN IDK? If the design brief emphasizes IQ, cost, portability - then that's what's important. Only TH-camrs with shelves of lenses in the background show them off. Most everyone else views the images, not the lens. We can also acknowledge that Canon is in this to make $$$. The materials used need to last to protect the brand so that they still work 10 years from now while being mass produced. Like everything else in life, there (needs) to be compromises. Canon needed to provide a mid level lens that filled a hole currently not in their lineup. Did this serve that need?
@@tonys2957 Of course not! Because this budget lens costs $1100. By the way. This lens will not last long under good loads. You can look at old lenses that look good. They are all put together much better.
This looks like a great lens. I'm a happy 24-105 F4L user with the 1.8 primes as video and night photography options so I don't think this has a place for me. I would be really curious about a 70-200 F4 or 100-300 F4 or 5.6! I'm curious if the choices they made with this lens (element placement and STM improvements) could influence other cheaper lens development. Anything with IS gets a look from me.
I will stay with my RF 24 - 105 f/4 because of the 35mm extra on the long end and its great sharpness, contrast, color reproduction and very good bokeh (for a zoom lens). The first 4mm help sometimes. And I like the IS if I use this lens with the EOS RP (and mybe EOS R8 in the future). I would like to see a 35 - 105 f/2.8 or a 45 - 135 f/2.8 at a similar price point with similar design philopsophy + IS and minus "rotate focal length ring for operability" which slots into the 16-35 and the 100-400(500) or 200-800mm focal length range! But as always: Good to have alternatives! & Thanks for the calm and informative review!
I do like it. But besides getting a lower aperature you can get the 24 to 105 F4 with more range and all the L series upgrades for around the same or less used. Itd be interesting seeing those 2 side by side and see if the 2.8 is worth it.
And you lose another stop. I like my 24-105, but it does have its problems. The Sigma that I used is good, but not great. It doesn’t feel as solid either.
Thanks Gordon for your extensive review as I really appreciate it. This is exactly the lens I've been looking for when I upgraded from my Canon 80D with a 24-105 EF lens. I wanted the 24-105 F4 L series lens, but I just couldn't substantiate the high cost. I didn't want the 24-105 mm F4-7 R kit lens either. I am amazed at how good this 28-70 mm F2.8 lens is and will be purchasing it and the lens hood soon. Oh, I also got the Canon R8 camera body. What would you recommend in a wide angle zoom lens? I use to have a 10-18 mm EF lens. Tx.
Got this lens when it first came out in early October. Canon says it has L-quality optics and full weather sealing. So why isn't it an L ? Best I can figure is its low price. Works for me! It's my Merry Christmas lens. Why that description? Because it's a "No eL"
With the R8, it’s a decent offering for a starter kit for professional photography, especially with a machine gun-like belt full of batteries. For those willing to change optics, €1100 for all three RF 28mm, RF 50mm, and the fantastic 85mm is the wiser option.
I’ve covered some events with my R8, including one that took over 6 hours, and I’ve never needed more than two batteries. I’d say most people will be covered with 3, unless they’re shooting all day long.
The R8 can run off USB-C; for longer use I'd just get a super-light USB-C cable, throw a medium-sized power bank in the camera bag and forget about battery life.
This is a great idea actually. The RF 24-50 and 24-105 STM wanted to be travel lenses but were too slow for indoor shooting. This could finally be the perfect one-lens solution for travel (as along as you aren't vlogging).
Wouldve gotten this if I didnt have the f2 and 24-105 f4 already. The f2 is too big for a travel lens. Bought the 24-105 right after a week long trip with the 28-70 f2. No way im hauling that thing again on another hike. Also realized that I rarely needed the f2 anyway, most of the time I was at f4 for landscape and group shots. Better with a smaller zoom and prime for me.
Great review. Might be good for a semi-professional looking for a f2.8 telephoto on a budget, but nowhere near the mark for the hobby user looking for a telephoto that is a step up from the kit lenses. If they can do a f2.8 for less than half the cost of the L series equivalent, then surely they can release a constant f4 telephoto at an actual reasonable price for their RP/R/R8 users. They opened the mount to bridge the gap in their crop sensor line up. Now they need to do something for their entry level full frames.
That came as a surprise. A weather resistant f2.8 constant aperture non L lens from Canon. On one site it is mentioned that the hood is included? Perhaps it’s not the correct info. This lens reminds me of the EF-S 18-135 nano USM which introduced this new autofocus motor. Also here a new type of STM and a new IS unit.
Very interesting news this morning! I have the 24-105 f4L, but I always leave it behind in dark situations. This could be exactly the lens I want on my R8.
I have the 24mm, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm non L... I'm almost considering selling all 4 to get this. I mainly use these primes for video work, except for the 85 which I use for portraits that I don't do very often. If I'm shooting a very special landscape photo or something I might switch out my kit 24-105 for a prime lens, but I'm pretty happy with the kit lens quality and like the versatile range. I do love the 35mm 1.8 for video and photo, but I often shoot it at 2.8 anyways when doing video. Thoughts? I am I nuts for thinking of selling 4 for 1?
it looks like the AF would be an upgrade on the zoom, i never loved the inconsistency/hunting of the 35 and 85 in lower light, and lead to much dissapointment when editing. hopefully this one locks better when the lights are dim. does appear the IQ gets worse as you approach 70mm. seems to go flat and lose the minimial pop/dimension it had at the wider range. will say the bokeh looks better than expected though. prob be one of those lenses that makes your life a bit more convenient, esp if you're not utilizing the larger apertures of your current set of primes.
This is a good start from Canon for hobbyist-grade lenses that lands in between the budget and professional options... but £1,200 is too high a price IMO, I would have loved to see it priced below £1,000. I'm also still waiting on Canon to release 1.4 aperture primes - although if the rumours are true and Canon are working on a 'VCM' version of the 50mm 1.4, I wonder how portable and affordable it'll be compared to it's legendary EF counterpart...
I am hard pressed to find a negative aspect against the RF 24-70 2.8, they even included IS which i though i wouldn´t see. i´ll wait for some in depth reviews but so far i dont see why i wouldnt sell my 24-70 2.8 for this lens, enjoy less weight/size for travel and even retain quite some nice amount of cash on top.
A very interesting option! I would’ve bought this over the EF Tamron 24-70 f2.8 G2, just on weight alone, if this was out 2 years ago. I imagine a lot of up-and-coming photographers looking to get a serious standard kit lens would be happy with this one. Canon should’ve been putting weather sealing on all their RF lenses from day 1.
I'm going on a hike with my tamron lense. I would love this lense instead. Just the weight difference for not a huge drop in preformance seems good to me.
Shame you didn’t do a comparison of the image quality at f2.8 compared to the RF prime lenses like the 35mm f1.8 Macro. I’d still recommend getting this lens and picking up a RF 24mm 1.8 Macro as well instead of the 24-105 f4 L, a lens which is over-rated in my opinion. If you want more reach beyond 70mm, the f4 version of the 70-200 L is a superb investment
Another informative review. I like the consistent methodology among your reviews. The pedant in me makes me say, that to date, the RF 200-800 is actually the most expensive non-L RF lens. :)
Looks like a competitor to Nikons rebranded Tamron 28-75 2.8. I would be curious to see how this compares to an adapted EF 24-70 2.8 II since it’s a similar price on the used market.
Might make a good combo with the Sigma18-50 on an APSC camera. Maybe Canon should make a STM line as a go-between the kit lenses and the L lenses. A 15-30 f2.8 or f4 STM might also be nice.
@@derbagger22 The 24-105L is the ultimate do-it-all lens. Even though I have the 24-70L, I also have the 24-105L as it's a better single-lens choice for travelling.
Seeing the title ‘Canon RF 28-70mm f2.8 REVIEW first looks‘ immediately sent my mind back to the now old Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM. If this non L f2.8 zoom can be to Mirrorlessness in 2024 what that very good fast non-L zoom was to APSC DSLRs, it might well be worth a bit of a premium. That EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 lens was the basis of my grab and go kit for half a decade.
I don't find the RF F4L zoom too heavy. (it is front heavy on the R8, tho. I keep my left hand on the barrel ring for ISO control, so it works out for me.) It's just too slow for the evenings and indoors. I just traded my RF 24-105mm F4L in for the EF-24-70mm F2.8L ii USM and an EF-EOS R control ring mount adapter for 100 bucks more. I think I'll miss the long end of the zoom.
I skipped R6mk2 due to the weight and price of RF 24-70 and I was pllanning to buy A7 IV / A7C II with the new Sigma 24-70. Which system makes more sense?
Should have simply been 24-70 and then there is room for 3rd party options. Other than that, it’s not bad. I’d probably go L glass if I was full frame but the options are there. Too expensive in the UK for me so do wait for it to drop in price
So will Canon add a 15-28/2.8 or 16-28/2.8 to pair with it? We’ve had these from Sigma and Tamron without IS, for Sony E and L mount for quite a few years now. I guess for full frame Canon is trying to justify keeping third party vendors out of the RF full frame marketplace with lenses like these IMHO. I already own the Canon L lenses I want for RF so it’s not for me. Thank you and take care.
It's expensive but the Tamrom Sony version started it's life at £900 in the UK so £200 more for a branded lens is about the same for the time and inflation, will be cheaper within 3 or 4 months
perfect to pair with my R8 for lightweight EDC... love my Tammy sp 24-70 G2 (keeping for weather sealed) adapted but boy is it heavy... but wow, that price...
Well - the RF 200-800mm is no L lens either and it's still more expensive but it's a totally different zoom range. The 28-70mm 2.8 looks fine... but I don't think it's a lens for me. I prefer to use my older (bigger) adapted EF lenses.
While you can always buy a lens hood, you can’t buy weather sealing. I’m glad Canon chose to include weather sealing over a lens hood. Including both would be nice though 🙂↕️
I see you posting the same question on Chris's channel Greg! PS - yeah that would be interesting, albeit academic since they're not available for Canon. Which also begs the question of which body would you use to test them vs the Canon, as you'd want them to be similar for a fair test.
I have the RF 24-70mm f2.8L IS USM which I’m very happy with. I also own the RF 24-105mm f4L IS USM so unlikely to buy this lens. However it does strike me as being over-priced and I can see this after a few months falling below £ 1,000 or it will not sell in numbers. Typical Canon UK over pricing.
Interesting to see its" size (how small is it) comparing to the old EF-S/17-55/2.8 (almost the same zoom range). But the "cheap" is not the word first pop up into my mind. It's still very expensive I think.
Well, the 17-55 f2.8 cost $1150 when it launched in 2006, not adjusted for inflation, AND it's only for cropped apsc AND isn't weather sealed. So in Canon's world, it's not bad!
Too little too Late After 40 years with Canon (1982 A 1 + 24-35L) I switched to Sony , for the price of a R6 & a bag full of basic zooms I got a an A7Cii & a bag full of 2.8 Sigmas, Canon have priced themselves Out of the consumer market and it just doesn’t add up to what else you can get for the money
This retractable design puzzles me. It's not exactly a pancake where 3 cm gain when stored makes a difference. Now it hardly makes it shorter but still does slow down the shooting process
Would really like to see this lens compared to the RF 24-105 f/4L lens. Looking for a good travel lens when not shooting wildlife and this lens makes choosing less obvious.
Yeah I'm interested in comparing them too... I suspect it'll mostly boil down to the obvious things: f2.8 and smaller barrel vs longer range and slightly better rendering
@@JT2140 hmmm, I'm not sure. Canon doesn't do many Mark IIs, and when they do, the gap is often very big. None of the RF lenses are older than 6 years at the moment. I think it'd be more likely they'd do a different kind of range or spec.
Quick question, so with the switches on the lens, AF - Control - MF. If I want to have it on Autofocus and want to use the control ring for ISO, do I leave it on control or AF? Can it do both at the same time? Asking since here it almost seems like you need to choose between the 2. Thanks!
Meh, my 18-150 handles all this, a little slower of course, but so am I! I’m sure it will sell well! The folks with the L model can put it in the safe now and use this!
It may be a similar price point to the RF 24-105/4L lens which does have a more usable range but the 24-105 isn’t that sharp and neither was the earlier EF version. I sent both lenses (years apart) to Canon to check thinking they would find an element out of alignment or something and both times the lens was returned to me with a note saying that the lens was “within acceptable tolerances”. Neither lens is real bad but neither is what I’d consider to be sharp compared to other lenses Canon lenses. 🤦🏻♂️
I agree, I've never been impressed with the 24-105 f4, I think many of us convince ourselves it's as good as we believe it surely is, and look beyond the imperfections. I called it out in my 24-105 STM review - I'd sooner have the cheaper one.
@@cameralabs thanks Gordon. On the Canon 6D Mk 2 the Tamron is good but on the R6 it tends to hunt a bit when trying to focus on a subject. I'll wait and see what Canon Australia and the retailers here start selling it for. USD prices are a bit high which means much higher here.
28-70 2.8? ah that focal range takes me back to the old Canon L Holy Trinity zooms got mine in the late 90's 17-35, 28-70 and the 70-200 still going strong (thank god as all three are out of support) but almost $2000 AUD for this RF lens .... half the weight and with OS not enough to tempt me away from milking a little more out of my 25 year old L
Under 100mm I have found primes better value plus they are f1.8 or f2. I find I use the 24mm the most and hardly use my 85. If Canon had made a 16-50 f2.8 like Fuji I could have been interested in that.
I wait until it goes on the refurbished price list. Overall, I have my L and non-L lenses. I know it's a bit repetitive. But I'll use the non L lenses for my travels and L lenses for local events and in-studio
I don't like the look of that zoom ring, having to turn 1/3 of the way before it even starts to change zoom range. That seems like it would be frustrating to use in the real world. No thanks, I'd rather spend the extra money and buy the 24-70 2.8 instead. Faster focusing too on the L lens.
B and H currently has the Sigma at $749, in my local market its £779 vs £1249 for the Canon. Sure IS is useful but this lens still overpriced in my opinion.
OK, I get it, you want 3rd party lenses WE HEAR YOU, but Canon will go their own way. I am glad that Sigma are introducing a range of their great APS-C optics, and I think Canon have actually shown some effort in that direction by licensing them to do so. As to the price... Any gear - be it a lens, camera body, computer or TV starts off more expensive, as the makers know there is a cohort who just HAVE to have the object as soon as it hits the streets. Give it a while, a few firmware updates and the price drops. Personally, that's when I would consider buying.
Great lens, but some hundret €€€ to expensive as a 2nd lens with this range.. (already own the very great EF 24-70 2.8II) At least the missing hood is a big bummer for its price...*doh*.... thanks for the review! Good as usual :)
Canon does a few things really well, but does things like charging 50% or 100% more than third party makers, and not including a plastic hood that MIGHT cost them $5. I owned a T1i, SL1, 7D, 77D and 5D III at one time or another. I’ve used an R7-disappointing. And of course, no licensed third part FF lenses. I’m done with them. I’m loving Panasonic.
My Canon RF 28-70mm f2.8 review: upgrade your kit zoom! EDIT: 200-800 is the MOST expensive non-L RF zoom.
Order the Canon RF 28-70mm f2.8 from B&H: bhpho.to/4gpvgEe or WEX UK: tidd.ly/3XCUEij
Sell your used gear to MPB at: bit.ly/3ULU9yL
Buy used gear from MPB at: prf.hn/l/YLqwRAP
Buy Gordon a coffee: www.paypal.me/cameralabs
Gordon's In Camera book: amzn.to/2n61PfI / Amazon uk: amzn.to/2mBqRVZ
Cameralabs merchandise: redbubble.com/people/cameralabs/shop
Gordon’s retro gear channel: th-cam.com/users/dinobytes
Gordon's travel tips channel: www.youtube.com/@GordonsTravelTips
Equipment used for producing my videos
MacBook Air 15in (M3): amzn.to/4cPat9S
DJI Osmo Pocket 3: click.dji.com/AIOhqT-LWUFDq-bGk8hD4Q?pm=link
Panasonic Lumix S5 II: amzn.to/3Hf5IcI
Sony A6400: prf.hn/l/pRO0wp5
Sony e 24mm f1.8: amzn.to/2TqWNzk
Rode NT USB mic: amzn.to/3AdHcUp
Rode Wireless Go II mic: amzn.to/3xkCvGo
Rode Lavalier Go mic: amzn.to/3ygzzKY
Godox UL150 light: amzn.to/2VpVbXE
Godox QR-P70 softbox: amzn.to/3yQfGdF
00:00 - Canon RF 28-70mm f2.8 introduction and rivals
02:24 - Canon RF 28-70mm f2.8 design and controls
04:05 - Canon RF 28-70mm f2.8 focusing
04:46 - Canon RF 28-70mm f2.8 face detection and presentation
05:35 - Canon RF 28-70mm f2.8 focus breathing
06:25 - Canon RF 28-70mm f2.8 landscape quality
07:49 - Canon RF 28-70mm f2.8 portrait quality
08:17 - Canon RF 28-70mm f2.8 bokeh quality
08:53 - Canon RF 28-70mm f2.8 samples and verdict
Music: www.davidcuttermusic.com / @dcuttermusic
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
A question just to make sure if we use it at 70mm it will be 2.8 of aperture? is it possible to use 2.8 at 70mm?
@@AgainstThisWorld yes, it's 2.8 maximum throughout the range. I include loads of 70mm f2.8 examples in the video, have you seen it?
@@cameralabs yes just to make sure... I`m sorry believe me it`a necessary I have had problems for not confirming information before even though it seems obvious...
Honestly, I’m impressed that there is a mid-range with a 2.8 aperture, 28-70 zoom that has image stabilization.
As Gordon points out in the review that the 24-70 f/2.8 and 28-70 f/2 L lenses have far better build quality and image quality, but you’re paying 2-3x for much heavier lenses.
I recently picked up the 24-70 f/2.8 L IS, and it’s an amazing lens. However if this lens existed last fall, I might have picked this up. (I don’t make a living from photography, so one’s mileage will vary.)
I wish I'd put this much work into my own video! Good to see you there the other day - wish I lived nearer London to get to more of these things.
so I see today is the day of releasing the videos for this lens. Good to see that Canon does promote its lenses through TH-camrs as any lens or camera from Sony or Lumix gets muuuuch more attention than Canon's
I enjoy both of your videos! Different perspectives helps in making a buying decision.
that was a mammoth drive you put in! Good to see you too!
@@blaspayri Sony gets more promotion because they invest in a LOT of review samples that they hand out to a lot of reviewers and influencers. So when a new Sony product is announced, you'll see a video by almost every camera youtuber. This is great for Sony, but I feel as a reviewer, your video can easily be lost in the crowd. Canon has way fewer review samples, so is more selective about who they go to.
@@cameralabsBetter to spend money on R&D rather than publicly.
Can't wait to test this one!
Oh my! Why would anyone prefer RF 24-70 f/2.8 than this smaller lighter beauty? Right, extra reach on the wide end but I am confused, haha!
@@JurajPadych because the weather seal and the 2.8 I want one soon
Love my R8, it’s a great camera for me but the new RF are insanely expensive. I have stuck with the adapted EF lenses for the time being due to pricing. For a third of the price you can get a used a 24-70 2.8 which, although heavier, is am sure would rival image quality?
I still use my 24-105 f4. £200 for a really good lens and wider. I do hope Canon license third parties for the Full frame RF mount!
Great review; thankyou!
This is an interesting concept. Lot to like, and a lot that’s not ideal. I worry what this means for the line… it feels like they need many more lenses of this design language (non-L, weather resistant, smart compromises on range) to fill out the lineup. Fearful they won’t let third party help on full frame and instead we’ll continue waiting as they slowly roll out similar mid-range options themselves.
Haha, let Canon earn their money ;)
@@DanYosua This lens is a very strong indication that Canon won’t be opening up the RF mount to third parties - they’ve decided to fill the mid-range gap themselves - and they certainly won’t want to be undercut by 40%.
This is perfect. Small, sealed, bright, light. EXACTLY what most seem to have been asking for and I hope many more of this type to come.
1 stop faster? that is twice the amount of light which makes a huge difference in low light. It's why the 28-70 f2 is the unicorn it is. It's my default lens in a 1-camera or 2-camera event setup (85 1.2 is the other lens for a 2-camera setup)).
I am sold. While I have the 28-70 f2 L, it is not a lens I use outside of professional work. Back then I purchased it for $3000. It is big and heavy with a 95 filter element. I have had a near miss or two with it. The Canon RF mount biggest problem is affordable glass. This is a step in the right direction
i actually see this as a perfect companion to the 28-70 f2. the big one for weddings etc. where it counts and the small one for video, smaller family shoots etc. - i am sold as well.
The issue with Canon’s closed mount (and in ways Nikon too, though to a lesser degree especially after the RED acquisition) is that Canon does not offer something significantly better nor differentiated from the other brands. Faster than F4, F2.8 zooms are no longer unique to Canon. And the competition often does it either better and/or cheaper.
This 28-70 seems like a good product offering but also demonstrates perhaps why Canon has imposed a blockade. The blockade is hurting Canon’s brand image, which is arguably the most valuable thing any company owns. It’s a losing game that Canon’s playing.
IMO Canon has two better plays: open the mount completely so that there can be a range of third party lenses that would make RF mount, the R cameras either more viable as consideration or just more attractive. It’s no secret that customers look to E mount because it’s open.
The second option is to officially partner with select third party manufacturers. The primary two being Sigma and Tamron. Work out a deal such that they can make RF versions of their FF lenses without lock outs (like what Sony does with their 15 fps limit) with Canon’s support. These RF versions are optimised and fully compatible with R cameras just as Canon lenses are. APSC Sigma RF lenses have been priced higher than the E mount equivalents; the premium can remain if indeed the RF variants are fully optimised and not just a mount swop. a vibrant mount will only do Canon good. The R5II, C80 while not revolutionary and without their issues are good products nonetheless. Bringing third party FF into the fold to bolster momentum for this gen would be beneficial.
IMO the camera industry needs to no longer see each other as the “problem”. The real “enemy” are the software companies like Adobe, OpenAI and companies like Nvidia. If and when they completely erode the pro imaging market (which is already happening and no longer theoretical), the customer base for high performance products will drop off. Switching to consumer isn’t that easy, it’s already the terrain of the smartphone brands and companies. Prosumer compacts remain a niche and possibly a fad despite the surge in popularity. The big win the camera industry needs to go for as a collective is to keep the interest in lens based imaging alive and possibly thriving even when there’s an option to generate images for pennies on the dime at speed. Not settling for the petty fighting over scraps left over by the software onslaught
Will be interesting if you do a blind test of this vs the rf 28-70 f2 at f2.8!
Yes!
more interested in the comparison with the 24-70 F2.8 honestly!
the bokeh may be a giveaway if you look close
@ yah but if you test at 2.8 that will be interesting
Just sold my RF 24-70 L for the new RF 35 L...so this will be perfect on days where a prime isn't enough but not overly committed to the L series zooms.
Im also doing the same.
How do you feel about the 35mm f/1.4's swirly bokeh? I think it's a little too much for me. I want to make the switch over to full frame at some point and this 28-70mm f/2.8 is definitely swaying me to go sooner than later.
Same here, I sold mine RF 24-70 L earlier this year and I am glad I didn't wait any longer.
How is it? I currently have 35 1.8 rf. Want to upgrade to the new 35 rf L 1.4!
What are you honest thoughts on the RF 35 1.4 ?
I’m currently deciding between the 28-70mm f/2.8 and the 24-70mm f/2.8 L for travel and portrait photography. Up until now, I’ve been using the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II EF and have been really happy with it, but it’s a bit cumbersome for travel. I used to rely on my nifty fifty while traveling, but unfortunately, it broke, and Canon can’t repair it. In a way, it’s a blessing because I’ve always wanted a mid-range zoom lens with superior image quality. I’ve seen plenty of reviews for the 24-70mm, but I can’t seem to find any detailed comparisons between the new 28-70mm f/2.8 and the 24-70mm. I know the 24-70mm L series lens has an edge in terms of build and quality, but I’m curious if it’s worth the extra price and weight. Would love your thoughts on this!
A 2.8 zoom under $1200 and that’s first party is pretty wild, good work Canon! Opening the RF mount(full frame) would still be better though. Would give their engineers more time to make some sweet L series glass while third party can focus on these kinds of RF lenses
Hasn't Canon already officially opened up the RF mount?
@@asystasyorg rf-s not full frame
@@inputusernamehere6331 Oh ok so they've only opened up the APS-C mount then? hmm didn't know that
@@asystasyorg it technically wasnt announced like that, but the only rf mount lenses that have dropped on 3rd party are aps-c
@@inputusernamehere6331 That's true, and I don't know why the 3rd-parties have done that (apart from the idea that more people may own Canon crop sensors than full-frame), but I presumed that the entire mount was opened up even if full-frame 3rd-party options are coming later.
Most expensive non-L lens in the RF mount is the 200-800mm.
To be fair, it has weather seal though
*edit - just realised this one also have weather seal. That's great!
It has a lot of glass, maybe it's actually best price per glass weight from Canon.
You're absolutely right, I forgot about that one. The 28-70 is now the 2nd most expensive non-L!
Its the most expensive STM lens?! :S
@@DerPhiLRF10-20L STM cost higher
I’m guessing (hoping?) they will sell this bundled as a kit lens at a ~$300 discount off of the MSRP.
Tamron 28-75 is $900 ($600 used)
Image stabilization looks really good though. Is still probably worth buying if you’re on canon
Yes, if it's discounted in a bundle, that'd be great...
agree, the stab looks really good, esp on a body without IBIS here. seems like a winner for video, and great way to lighten the load for gimbal work
The corners did look pretty good, at least in that test shot.
The comparison in my head is the new Sony 24-50/2.8 G. Two different approaches to an f/2.8 standard zoom that compromises on zoom range to add lightness, both actually about the same price. Sony has a nicer build, but both focal lengths have advantages. Sony is less of a do-it-all lens, but probably a nicer lens to pair with an 85mm prime or telephoto zoom.
I am buying lenses from RF system this is a an intelligent lens for Touristic work, I do a lot of Stock, this is a very good approach to not carry the more expensive lenses and not carry the cheapest ones on travel shots, great!
Super happy with the 24-70 2.8, but I like the idea of Canon weather sealing non-L lenses. Sold all non-L glass because of this missing feature. So, even though I'm not interested in the 28-70 2.8 in particular, who knows, maybe Canon can surprise me with some fun non-L glass in the future. That'd be amazing.
Hurrah 🎊 🎉 Canon finally did it!!!
Looks like a great lens option! I think you said this is the most expensive non-L RF lens, but the 200-800 is pricier (and, the only non-L to come with a hood). I like that Canon finally came out with a fast constant aperature lens that fills the gap between the kit lenses, and the pricier L lenses. I’ve used the 28-70 F2 for wedding (on a R7 yet), and it was fantastic - but too heavy as an everyday lens. My experience with Tamron lenses, I personally wouldn’t even consider even if it was offered in RF mount. I know I can rely on Canon (Sigma has been pretty good too) for accurate AF. At just over a lb, this will be a great lens for travel with both APSC and FF cameras, can’t wait to try it out! Thanks again for the quick review!!
Wow, just this week I was wondering if Canon would ever make a lower cost 24/28-70. I almost bought the sigma one. This is an instant buy for me
Sigma sadly doesn't make a Canon version.
@@cameralabs Very true, but the Sigma 24-70 EF is an attractive prospect
@@blakberi true, especially used
@@cameralabs Oh, alright, you twisted my arm - I’ll check out MPB!
Well. It may cost $1,100, but its design looks like $300.
Are you talking IQ? Isn't that what's important at the end of the day?
what? there is no way this plastic shard costs 1100??? when he said that i missed it
@@tonys2957 If that doesn't matter, then why does the L-series look better? Let them make cheap lenses beautiful, and let the L-series look like this new 28-70. There's no difference, right?
@@EdvardKALEN IDK? If the design brief emphasizes IQ, cost, portability - then that's what's important. Only TH-camrs with shelves of lenses in the background show them off. Most everyone else views the images, not the lens.
We can also acknowledge that Canon is in this to make $$$. The materials used need to last to protect the brand so that they still work 10 years from now while being mass produced.
Like everything else in life, there (needs) to be compromises.
Canon needed to provide a mid level lens that filled a hole currently not in their lineup.
Did this serve that need?
@@tonys2957
Of course not! Because this budget lens costs $1100. By the way. This lens will not last long under good loads. You can look at old lenses that look good. They are all put together much better.
What an unexpected release! Now, time to watch your review…
This looks like a great lens. I'm a happy 24-105 F4L user with the 1.8 primes as video and night photography options so I don't think this has a place for me. I would be really curious about a 70-200 F4 or 100-300 F4 or 5.6! I'm curious if the choices they made with this lens (element placement and STM improvements) could influence other cheaper lens development. Anything with IS gets a look from me.
I will stay with my RF 24 - 105 f/4 because of the 35mm extra on the long end and its great sharpness, contrast, color reproduction and very good bokeh (for a zoom lens). The first 4mm help sometimes. And I like the IS if I use this lens with the EOS RP (and mybe EOS R8 in the future).
I would like to see a 35 - 105 f/2.8 or a 45 - 135 f/2.8 at a similar price point with similar design philopsophy + IS and minus "rotate focal length ring for operability" which slots into the 16-35 and the 100-400(500) or 200-800mm focal length range!
But as always: Good to have alternatives! & Thanks for the calm and informative review!
I do like it. But besides getting a lower aperature you can get the 24 to 105 F4 with more range and all the L series upgrades for around the same or less used. Itd be interesting seeing those 2 side by side and see if the 2.8 is worth it.
And you lose another stop. I like my 24-105, but it does have its problems. The Sigma that I used is good, but not great. It doesn’t feel as solid either.
Ups and downs
This lens looks very nice! It takes it's place as the missing quality general purpose lens. F2.8 is the threshold for surviving low-light indoors.
Canon: We have Sigma lenses at home
The Sigma lenses at home:
This lens is a great value for the price. I'm really impressed with the build quality and image stabilization Sir.
Thanks Gordon for your extensive review as I really appreciate it. This is exactly the lens I've been looking for when I upgraded from my Canon 80D with a 24-105 EF lens. I wanted the 24-105 F4 L series lens, but I just couldn't substantiate the high cost. I didn't want the 24-105 mm F4-7 R kit lens either. I am amazed at how good this 28-70 mm F2.8 lens is and will be purchasing it and the lens hood soon. Oh, I also got the Canon R8 camera body. What would you recommend in a wide angle zoom lens? I use to have a 10-18 mm EF lens. Tx.
Got this lens when it first came out in early October. Canon says it has L-quality optics and full weather sealing. So why isn't it an L ? Best I can figure is its low price. Works for me! It's my Merry Christmas lens. Why that description? Because it's a "No eL"
I have a heavy old Canon EF 28-80mm f2.8-4 L (mini-magic drainpipe), it gives wonderful image quality at a very modest price. It's built like a tank.
Great lens..dont understand why you have to get to the 28 mm mark after the click to use it....? Overall the quality is as great as the 24-70 2.8
With the R8, it’s a decent offering for a starter kit for professional photography, especially with a machine gun-like belt full of batteries. For those willing to change optics, €1100 for all three RF 28mm, RF 50mm, and the fantastic 85mm is the wiser option.
I’ve covered some events with my R8, including one that took over 6 hours, and I’ve never needed more than two batteries. I’d say most people will be covered with 3, unless they’re shooting all day long.
Could you share the store info? I am interested in the bundle you mentioned.
@@engineer4862 current standard prices in EU 50mm RF 195€, 85mm RF 598€, 28mm 307€
The R8 can run off USB-C; for longer use I'd just get a super-light USB-C cable, throw a medium-sized power bank in the camera bag and forget about battery life.
This is a great idea actually. The RF 24-50 and 24-105 STM wanted to be travel lenses but were too slow for indoor shooting. This could finally be the perfect one-lens solution for travel (as along as you aren't vlogging).
Agreed
Wouldve gotten this if I didnt have the f2 and 24-105 f4 already. The f2 is too big for a travel lens. Bought the 24-105 right after a week long trip with the 28-70 f2. No way im hauling that thing again on another hike. Also realized that I rarely needed the f2 anyway, most of the time I was at f4 for landscape and group shots. Better with a smaller zoom and prime for me.
There is a lens for every scenario. We just need to pick the right ones...
This is an amazing video for such a short time with the lens. Subscribed.
Thanks, I worked rather hard in the time I had!
Great review. Might be good for a semi-professional looking for a f2.8 telephoto on a budget, but nowhere near the mark for the hobby user looking for a telephoto that is a step up from the kit lenses. If they can do a f2.8 for less than half the cost of the L series equivalent, then surely they can release a constant f4 telephoto at an actual reasonable price for their RP/R/R8 users. They opened the mount to bridge the gap in their crop sensor line up. Now they need to do something for their entry level full frames.
That came as a surprise. A weather resistant f2.8 constant aperture non L lens from Canon. On one site it is mentioned that the hood is included? Perhaps it’s not the correct info.
This lens reminds me of the EF-S 18-135 nano USM which introduced this new autofocus motor. Also here a new type of STM and a new IS unit.
I asked Canon and they assured me the hood is not included.
@@cameralabs thank you. Too bad. For the cost they could have included it.
Very interesting news this morning! I have the 24-105 f4L, but I always leave it behind in dark situations. This could be exactly the lens I want on my R8.
I have the 24mm, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm non L... I'm almost considering selling all 4 to get this. I mainly use these primes for video work, except for the 85 which I use for portraits that I don't do very often. If I'm shooting a very special landscape photo or something I might switch out my kit 24-105 for a prime lens, but I'm pretty happy with the kit lens quality and like the versatile range. I do love the 35mm 1.8 for video and photo, but I often shoot it at 2.8 anyways when doing video. Thoughts? I am I nuts for thinking of selling 4 for 1?
it looks like the AF would be an upgrade on the zoom, i never loved the inconsistency/hunting of the 35 and 85 in lower light, and lead to much dissapointment when editing. hopefully this one locks better when the lights are dim.
does appear the IQ gets worse as you approach 70mm. seems to go flat and lose the minimial pop/dimension it had at the wider range. will say the bokeh looks better than expected though. prob be one of those lenses that makes your life a bit more convenient, esp if you're not utilizing the larger apertures of your current set of primes.
This is a good start from Canon for hobbyist-grade lenses that lands in between the budget and professional options... but £1,200 is too high a price IMO, I would have loved to see it priced below £1,000.
I'm also still waiting on Canon to release 1.4 aperture primes - although if the rumours are true and Canon are working on a 'VCM' version of the 50mm 1.4, I wonder how portable and affordable it'll be compared to it's legendary EF counterpart...
Just bought the RF 24-70L 2.8. Crazy that they made a cheaper 2.8 standard zoom.
I am hard pressed to find a negative aspect against the RF 24-70 2.8, they even included IS which i though i wouldn´t see. i´ll wait for some in depth reviews but so far i dont see why i wouldnt sell my 24-70 2.8 for this lens, enjoy less weight/size for travel and even retain quite some nice amount of cash on top.
Thank you for posting this review! I would be curious to know what the difference is between this lens and the 24-70 2.8, aside from the range.
It is always nice to see the front of the Canon Headoffice building in Uxbridge sliding into the image reviews
A very interesting option! I would’ve bought this over the EF Tamron 24-70 f2.8 G2, just on weight alone, if this was out 2 years ago.
I imagine a lot of up-and-coming photographers looking to get a serious standard kit lens would be happy with this one. Canon should’ve been putting weather sealing on all their RF lenses from day 1.
Agree to ALL of this. I love my tamron 24-70 g2, but if this came out years ago, I would’ve been all over this for the size and weight savings.
I'm going on a hike with my tamron lense. I would love this lense instead. Just the weight difference for not a huge drop in preformance seems good to me.
Complete and informative review.Useful for Canon users,like myself.Thanks a lot.Keep up the good job !
Thanks!
Shame you didn’t do a comparison of the image quality at f2.8 compared to the RF prime lenses like the 35mm f1.8 Macro. I’d still recommend getting this lens and picking up a RF 24mm 1.8 Macro as well instead of the 24-105 f4 L, a lens which is over-rated in my opinion. If you want more reach beyond 70mm, the f4 version of the 70-200 L is a superb investment
This was a very quick first-looks test, no time for any direct comparisons with other lenses this time I'm afraid.
Another informative review. I like the consistent methodology among your reviews. The pedant in me makes me say, that to date, the RF 200-800 is actually the most expensive non-L RF lens. :)
You're right and I edited the description to mention the 200-800
Very unexpected! Wish this lens would've been released when I first went into mirrorless. Without doubt I would've bought it!
Looks like a competitor to Nikons rebranded Tamron 28-75 2.8. I would be curious to see how this compares to an adapted EF 24-70 2.8 II since it’s a similar price on the used market.
Might make a good combo with the Sigma18-50 on an APSC camera. Maybe Canon should make a STM line as a go-between the kit lenses and the L lenses. A 15-30 f2.8 or f4 STM might also be nice.
You're right, the pricing is FAR too close to the 24-105L. Unless you absolutely need the extra stop, the L makes far more sense.
The lens that stays on my R6 80% of the time...
@@derbagger22 The 24-105L is the ultimate do-it-all lens. Even though I have the 24-70L, I also have the 24-105L as it's a better single-lens choice for travelling.
Seeing the title ‘Canon RF 28-70mm f2.8 REVIEW first looks‘ immediately sent my mind back to the now old Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM. If this non L f2.8 zoom can be to Mirrorlessness in 2024 what that very good fast non-L zoom was to APSC DSLRs, it might well be worth a bit of a premium. That EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 lens was the basis of my grab and go kit for half a decade.
Finally a good kit zoom. Overpriced, perhaps, but at least not paperweight. I might swap out the RF24-105F4L for travel.
That is exactly what I am thinking as well. I travel with the R8 and the 24-105 f4 is pretty unbalanced and heavy on it.
I don't find the RF F4L zoom too heavy. (it is front heavy on the R8, tho. I keep my left hand on the barrel ring for ISO control, so it works out for me.) It's just too slow for the evenings and indoors. I just traded my RF 24-105mm F4L in for the EF-24-70mm F2.8L ii USM and an EF-EOS R control ring mount adapter for 100 bucks more. I think I'll miss the long end of the zoom.
Its a small and light, F2.8, sharp wide open, stabilised full frame. When it drops to £999 its going to sell, sell, sell. Nice one Canon.
I skipped R6mk2 due to the weight and price of RF 24-70 and I was pllanning to buy A7 IV / A7C II with the new Sigma 24-70. Which system makes more sense?
Whichever one has the lenses you want and can afford
Should have simply been 24-70 and then there is room for 3rd party options.
Other than that, it’s not bad. I’d probably go L glass if I was full frame but the options are there. Too expensive in the UK for me so do wait for it to drop in price
So will Canon add a 15-28/2.8 or 16-28/2.8 to pair with it? We’ve had these from Sigma and Tamron without IS, for Sony E and L mount for quite a few years now. I guess for full frame Canon is trying to justify keeping third party vendors out of the RF full frame marketplace with lenses like these IMHO. I already own the Canon L lenses I want for RF so it’s not for me. Thank you and take care.
I hope so
Great review as usual. The price does seem steep even considering sales / discounts
It's expensive but the Tamrom Sony version started it's life at £900 in the UK so £200 more for a branded lens is about the same for the time and inflation, will be cheaper within 3 or 4 months
In the UK, the Canon will cost £1250, I read. That's £350 more, if it's the case.
perfect to pair with my R8 for lightweight EDC... love my Tammy sp 24-70 G2 (keeping for weather sealed) adapted but boy is it heavy... but wow, that price...
This is brilliant from Canon honestly
what's the advantage compare with 24-105 f4 L series, for me the choice is obvious : 24-105 L f74. What is your opinion ???
f2.8 is the advantage, plus lighter weight. Didn't I say that in the video?
Well - the RF 200-800mm is no L lens either and it's still more expensive but it's a totally different zoom range. The 28-70mm 2.8 looks fine... but I don't think it's a lens for me. I prefer to use my older (bigger) adapted EF lenses.
If I buy the Canon R5 2 with the 24-105 f4L the lens is slightly cheaper and so works out the same price as this new RF 28 -70 f2.8.
While you can always buy a lens hood, you can’t buy weather sealing. I’m glad Canon chose to include weather sealing over a lens hood. Including both would be nice though 🙂↕️
Good point!
Would love to see this compared to sigma 28-70 and tamron 28-75 2.8 zooms
If only they would open the mount to 3rd parties :(
I see you posting the same question on Chris's channel Greg! PS - yeah that would be interesting, albeit academic since they're not available for Canon. Which also begs the question of which body would you use to test them vs the Canon, as you'd want them to be similar for a fair test.
It looks like the zoom throw was very long up to 70mm; and I thought it took its sweet time finding your face. Good video, by the way 😊
Thanks! The response time is more down to the body and its AF settings
I have the RF 24-70mm f2.8L IS USM which I’m very happy with. I also own the RF 24-105mm f4L IS USM so unlikely to buy this lens. However it does strike me as being over-priced and I can see this after a few months falling below £ 1,000 or it will not sell in numbers. Typical Canon UK over pricing.
I love the 28-70 2.0 but the lack of IS for video is very apparent
Interesting to see its" size (how small is it) comparing to the old EF-S/17-55/2.8 (almost the same zoom range). But the "cheap" is not the word first pop up into my mind. It's still very expensive I think.
Well, the 17-55 f2.8 cost $1150 when it launched in 2006, not adjusted for inflation, AND it's only for cropped apsc AND isn't weather sealed. So in Canon's world, it's not bad!
Perfect to replace my primes STM 28mm and 50mm, so no need to switch between them
Looks like I'll be shooting with EF glass for a bit longer. That's quite expensive.
Too little too Late
After 40 years with Canon (1982 A 1 + 24-35L) I switched to Sony , for the price of a R6 & a bag full of basic zooms I got a an
A7Cii & a bag full of 2.8 Sigmas, Canon have priced themselves
Out of the consumer market and it just doesn’t add up to what else you can get for the money
This retractable design puzzles me. It's not exactly a pancake where 3 cm gain when stored makes a difference. Now it hardly makes it shorter but still does slow down the shooting process
I think it's to differentiate it more from the Sigma
I want to see this lens go head to head with the RF L 24-70 and see the big difference.
Would really like to see this lens compared to the RF 24-105 f/4L lens. Looking for a good travel lens when not shooting wildlife and this lens makes choosing less obvious.
Yeah I'm interested in comparing them too... I suspect it'll mostly boil down to the obvious things: f2.8 and smaller barrel vs longer range and slightly better rendering
@@cameralabs any chance this could be a sign to expect a mark 2 of the 24-105? This lens seems pretty close in the price bracket and makes me hopeful
@@JT2140 hmmm, I'm not sure. Canon doesn't do many Mark IIs, and when they do, the gap is often very big. None of the RF lenses are older than 6 years at the moment. I think it'd be more likely they'd do a different kind of range or spec.
Quick question, so with the switches on the lens, AF - Control - MF. If I want to have it on Autofocus and want to use the control ring for ISO, do I leave it on control or AF? Can it do both at the same time? Asking since here it almost seems like you need to choose between the 2. Thanks!
I asked them that question too! I think it is possible, but I can't remember the configuration.
Meh, my 18-150 handles all this, a little slower of course, but so am I! I’m sure it will sell well! The folks with the L model can put it in the safe now and use this!
Thanks! Have a coffee (from a M4/3 user !! )
Thankyou! Very much appreciated!
It may be a similar price point to the RF 24-105/4L lens which does have a more usable range but the 24-105 isn’t that sharp and neither was the earlier EF version. I sent both lenses (years apart) to Canon to check thinking they would find an element out of alignment or something and both times the lens was returned to me with a note saying that the lens was “within acceptable tolerances”. Neither lens is real bad but neither is what I’d consider to be sharp compared to other lenses Canon lenses. 🤦🏻♂️
I agree, I've never been impressed with the 24-105 f4, I think many of us convince ourselves it's as good as we believe it surely is, and look beyond the imperfections. I called it out in my 24-105 STM review - I'd sooner have the cheaper one.
I have the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 lens which I use with an adapter on my R6. Would the 28-70 RF lens be a better one?
What do you think?
Thanks.
it'll be lighter and probably focus better. As for quality, you'd need to search for similar sample images
@@cameralabs thanks Gordon. On the Canon 6D Mk 2 the Tamron is good but on the R6 it tends to hunt a bit when trying to focus on a subject. I'll wait and see what Canon Australia and the retailers here start selling it for. USD prices are a bit high which means much higher here.
$1099 MSRP. I'll wait to pick up one used after Christmas.
Great review, as always!
28-70 2.8? ah that focal range takes me back to the old Canon L Holy Trinity zooms got mine in the late 90's 17-35, 28-70 and the 70-200 still going strong (thank god as all three are out of support) but almost $2000 AUD for this RF lens .... half the weight and with OS not enough to tempt me away from milking a little more out of my 25 year old L
Yeah, I should have mentioned the original 28-70 f2.8L lens from long ago, I think the early 90s...
Under 100mm I have found primes better value plus they are f1.8 or f2. I find I use the 24mm the most and hardly use my 85. If Canon had made a 16-50 f2.8 like Fuji I could have been interested in that.
The Fujifilm lens is for apsc. If you have an apsc Canon, check out the Sigma dc dn zooms
I wait until it goes on the refurbished price list. Overall, I have my L and non-L lenses. I know it's a bit repetitive. But I'll use the non L lenses for my travels and L lenses for local events and in-studio
Kinda like buying a Rolex and wearing a seiko😂😂
I don't like the look of that zoom ring, having to turn 1/3 of the way before it even starts to change zoom range. That seems like it would be frustrating to use in the real world. No thanks, I'd rather spend the extra money and buy the 24-70 2.8 instead. Faster focusing too on the L lens.
That's an impressive size for what it can do.
I don't see Canon allowing FF 3rd party lenses anytime soon with this release. Its nearly twice the cost of the Sigma alternative for L and E mount.
this has stabilization, third party sigma dont. this is $1099 MSRP, sigma is $900 MSRP. $200 difference for first party with IS.
B and H currently has the Sigma at $749, in my local market its £779 vs £1249 for the Canon. Sure IS is useful but this lens still overpriced in my opinion.
@@joe2snj its new, would be discounted as well later on
OK, I get it, you want 3rd party lenses WE HEAR YOU, but Canon will go their own way. I am glad that Sigma are introducing a range of their great APS-C optics, and I think Canon have actually shown some effort in that direction by licensing them to do so.
As to the price... Any gear - be it a lens, camera body, computer or TV starts off more expensive, as the makers know there is a cohort who just HAVE to have the object as soon as it hits the streets. Give it a while, a few firmware updates and the price drops. Personally, that's when I would consider buying.
Good alternative to the 24 105 f4
Great lens, but some hundret €€€ to expensive as a 2nd lens with this range.. (already own the very great EF 24-70 2.8II)
At least the missing hood is a big bummer for its price...*doh*....
thanks for the review! Good as usual :)
Would never use it but kind of cool for them to do, bummer theyre still holding third parties hostage on full frame stuff.
Id rather get this combo with the r8 and rather than the r10 with the 18-35 1.8 on a gimbal, it hurts my arm😢
Canon does a few things really well, but does things like charging 50% or 100% more than third party makers, and not including a plastic hood that MIGHT cost them $5. I owned a T1i, SL1, 7D, 77D and 5D III at one time or another. I’ve used an R7-disappointing. And of course, no licensed third part FF lenses. I’m done with them. I’m loving Panasonic.
I wish i have invested in canon instead of Fuji.