One of the few, if not only, reviewers who goes deeply in the process of testing the product. You really know what we want to know about the lens, or the camera❤
Thank you. It seems to be a format that is working, allowing me to be more in depth than most reviewers but giving an off-ramp for those who want less detail.
One thing I noticed with recent Sony designs is use of dual focusing groups. All the 4 motor lens do this including, but not limited to, the 50/1.2, 24-70/2.8 GMII, 20/1.8, etc. This seems to allow faster focusing because each group traverse less and better close focusing. The rear group seems to occupy the "floating element" placement of manual focus lenses of yore.
I would have much rather had a 24-50 / 60mm lens instead of 28-70. The wider positions 24-28mm are more important than 50-70mm to me personally. This is why I went with the 24-70mm GM II versus say the Tamron 28-75mm.
@@DustinAbbottTWI th-cam.com/video/IMexPR1jQCk/w-d-xo.html It seems like 28-70 F2 is better than GM II. Please, if you get a chance, do a comparison review, you always go so in depth. A lot of people would be very interested in how it compares in optical performance vs 24-35-50-85 primes, myself included. If it has comparable sharpens to the primes at 1.4, it will be a very compelling option, albeit the veiling issue is very prominent, 35 GM is so much better in that regard. I'm not sure how useful 28-70 F2 is going to be in the real world because of this.
is there more correction in post needed with this sony over the canon version of this 28-70 f2 ? the canon 28-70 2.8 did not have as much ghosting right ?
Top review as always. Great lens however for me personally, no 24mm is the deal breaker and that is why I sold my 28-75mm Tamron and went with the 24-70mm f2.8 GM II.
You are unlikely to see 24mm on a lens like this in the near future. That would result in a lens much larger and heavier and also less optically exceptional. There's a reason the two such lenses that exist only go to 28mm.
Nice!. Way over my budget, but nice! Would love to see a 20-60 (or 20-55) f2.8 too. The tamron 20-40 is nice, but would love a bit longer focal length.
Some uncanny hybrid performance with this lens. I'm curious about how you feel about the overall performance vs. the 28-45 sigma in that focal range. At a little over 1/2 the focal range for less than 1/2 the price. I think some enthusiasts and professionals will have a hard time choosing between the two. Any thoughts?
@dima1353 Yes, I can see that extending to 70mm is going to give a good blend of wide framing to reach. Maybe a certain photographer would give up the 24-28mm range for certain applications, but for 2.0-2.8, I can't compare a 24-70/28-75 to something like a 28-70. It's really why I asked about the 28-45. This seems more suited for hybrid, and that means videography. It's really in that arena. I can understand the compromises for range and weight for light in this hybrid context. Maybe I'm not so keen on how people have used the 28-70 f2 for canon, but something always struck me that it was an engineering flex than an industry defining tool, especially with so many competitive f2.8 lenses with greater range.
@@dleise I've got the sigma 28-45 and it's a really fantastic lens. The bokeh is fine but probably my only critique of the lens, it just doesn't quite give me that "wow" feeling that some of my other lenses do, but I'm being picky there. I mainly use it for wedding photos and video. I'm in two minds over whether I'll eventually change it to this sony - I always have a second camera body on me with a longer lens, so I'm not sure I really need any extra reach on my "wider" body. It's tempting but for the price and the weakness in backlit situations I don't think it's worth it over the sigma (for my use case at least). If I wanted to switch to only using one camera body all day, then that would be a different story and I'd probably make the switch.
@kingweddingmedia This is great insight. Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. I rented the 28-45 and had a great time, especially considering the sharpness at minimum focus distance, magnification, and internal zoom design. If you ever get to use the Sony, please let me know if these features are as favorable for the Sigma as I believe they are.
I liked the Sigma, though obviously I like this zoom range more. You obviously have to really want the versality of this lens to pay for it, however. It really comes down to your actual shooting needs.
@@kingweddingmedia That's what I use at work 99% of the time, 1 camera 1 lens (a7Siii Sigma 28-70mmf2.8) so this 28-70mmf2 would be a fantastic upgrade & the weight increase is manageable
The Sony is sharper (though both are incredibly sharp), and I might give a very slight rendering edge to the Sigma. It does have the advantage of that extra one third of light gathering, so a little more subject isolation over the shared range.
It's not weird, the flare looks nice on this lens. There are lots of photographers who like to incorporate flare into their work. It's a nice creative effect.
I'm curious to know if you prefer this lens to the Sigma 28-45mm, you said the Sigma has something special like if it was a Zeiss lens, mentioning the colors and rendering. How about the Sony ?
@@DustinAbbottTWI HI could u do an comparison between these 2 lens as i own a 35-150. would like to know is it worth the upgrade especially in terms of portrait photography. thank you
It is not a standard lens that all people can buy, like the 24-105 F/4. It is a top of the tops, luxury option, and currently only available for the Canon and SONY systems. It is expected to be quite a bit more expensive than the 24-70 F/2.8, similar to how the F2.8 zooms are pricier than the F4 ones.
Great lens. But I wonder how is it compare to Tamron 28 -75. I always recommend Tamron to any Sony shooter, as must have lens, I have it myself and I love it, is there’s enough reasons I should get Sony and pay double? I am replacing my lenses with GMs when it make sense. I like new Sony lenses, they start to have colors, unfortunately prices are not friendly, so I have to have some priorities in place. Great review as always. Thank you
Well, in this case the Sony will cost triple. The answer to the question is complicated. For some people, the answer is yes, as this will give a superlative performance and more subject isolation. You could also buy the Tamron and another several prime lenses to achieve similar or even superior subject isolation, so it really comes down to your needs.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Yes, I agree. for the moment I am happy with Tamron, but I like to change things around, and try new things. Unfortunately nobody send me lenses to play with, so every time i do, it cost few bucks. To minimize my losses, I watch reviews and do some researches. But it make my life much easier when experts like, who I can trusted, do deep dive and give it to me on silver platter. Thank you for your great work
Sony has been really effective at reducing size in some of the potentially big lenses. Their ability to grind certain optical glass elements that no one else has done is pretty impressive.
I was on holiday this summer with my A1 & 24-70 GM II. There were some photos where I wished I had a different lens for a different look. I missed not only the quantity but the quality of the bokeh and the rendering of the 50mm 1.2 GM. I missed the unique look of Laowa 35mm 0.95 and of course there were times when I wished for something wider or longer but that's not our point here. As much as this lens is a monster (in physical dimensions & also performance) for event/wedding photographers (and I would argue getting 1 stop more light is really unneeded at this point), It's still not going to cut it when you are looking for a good mix of quality and quantity in bokeh only possible by prime lenses (or maybe tele-zoom instruments where the quantity often also makes up for quality). Also for travel there are many opportunities where a 24mm makes a huge difference compared to 28mm. Do paid customers care about bokeh, transitions, highlights, rendering and god forbid that 3d pop as much as photography geeks? No and that is precisely why this lens will excel. It will get the job done. My verdict: It's a hell of a lot of lens. Sony did it, but not for me. Too many aspherics messing up the bokeh, nasty mechanical vignetting.
I have hard time believing that vignetting is really that low. I suspect the raw file contains corrections that are automatically applied. I wonder if Lightroom says that.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Nikon also started including corrections in NEF file one day. I expect all manufacturers will be doing the same, because it helps with lens design and using such a lens w/o corrections doesn't make sense. Anybody thinking of using Sony lenses on adapter on Nikon could be for a big surprise.
@derekv6479 - I'm not sure you can say they aren't innovators, when they routinely produce glass elements that no one else has made, the best autofocus system designs in their lenses I've ever seen, and thus routinely produce pro grade lenses that are smaller and lighter than competing lenses.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I don't know. I've never been the, OMG This F1.4 weighs 100g less?!?!?! Let me get rid of my 1.2 yesterday!" Type of photographer. Unless we're talking about kilograms, I simply don't care about compactness and weight innovations. I don't consider them such. Optical performance and abilities is all I care about period. As such, Sony makes great lenses, but I'd be hard-pressed to call them innovators when that criteria is taken.
@@derekv6479 I have tremendous respect for all camera brands as the competition between them is making us getting closer to that one perfect camera and a perfect lens, but, opinions are subjective and as such sony is an innovator in the lens department too, like the nearly 10 years old FE 90mm f2.8 Macro is a genius design with its MF/AF front clutch mechanism and its a very sharp lens. I love capturing insects and that lens is one of the reasons I stayed with Sony FF as non of canon EF or RF macro lenses are as good as that lens. I think, only the new Nikkor 105mm macro is as good. I never used any 85mm for portraits either because i use it (FE 90mm macro) for that purpose too. Yes, the olympus OM 1 ii with 90mm macro would win the overall battle of macro but then it comes with the limitation of a non FF system and the depth of field.
Another fantastic review. For me I’d rather get the Sigma 24 70 as the extra 4mm wide is significant. Plus the extra stop is not worth $1700-$1900 vs a Sigma or Tamron alternative.
The only reason why this lens is lighter is because it relies more on s/w gimmick to correct the images vs the glass elements in the Canon. Guarantee the flaw will start to appear if this lens is used on older bodies w/o all the fancy s/w correction features. The same Sony trolls for months said this will be a 24-70 F2 but lacks the basic understanding in optics to know that's next to impossible using their shitty mount.
@ Sharper photos… better video… A wide selection of lenses for much better prices. I switched to Sony before. Had an A7R2 & A73. I switched back because of the photo color and the RF85 1.2 being the most superior 85 at the time (I’ve bought 6 different 85’s in search of the best one). Now Sony has a better 85, better 135, their colors have improved and the video quality is still superior… So… realistically… those things… lol
You are just having GAS lol. Any modern lenses will allow you to take fantastic photos. This lens is sharper but in Irene's sample (a portrait photographer) it shows that the colours might be slightly weaker than Canon. Sony is lighter, so both systems have their own pros and cons, but both are very capable.
I guess there’s a price to pay (beside the $$$) for all those specialty glass elements regarding the flaring despite all the modern coatings. Very bad on this lens but that was it’s only real negative besides the bulk and price. Great review as usual Dustin.
@@DustinAbbottTWI oh i know about the physical limitations. Just you don't really need the long end. Wider is better IMO. Something like a 20 or 24-50 f/2 would be awesome. I don't find the 28mm end interesting. It's just not wide enough.
I own the Canon for about 3 years. Breathing is literally zero issue in the real world photography (which I do with it). Weight is substantial but I own and use even heavier lenses and have no problems with it. You can just exercise more :-). Slow AF is a BS, it focuses comfortably fast for ramping dogs or children. I am not missing shots with this lens because of the slow AF. What body do you use it on? With mine R3 and R5II it is just perfect lens.
@@petrpohnan875 I am also surprised about the comment on breathing. I never noticed it in practice, unless i guess if they do video but neither the Canon nor the Sony is really the right form factor for video.
Wow, the bokeh really isn't my cup of tea. Seems rather boring and lacking any character. In some pictures in medium distance it's even a bit nervous. I'd have expected a bit more in this department. But well, people have quite a diverse idea on what an appealing bokeh looks like.
This episode is sponsored by Fioboc. Visit Fioboc.com and use code DUSTIN20 for 20% off everything.
Nice... Glad you have a copy of it.. So.. I'll watch your review first. Because you're the best.
That's very kind.
One of the few, if not only, reviewers who goes deeply in the process of testing the product. You really know what we want to know about the lens, or the camera❤
Thank you. That seems to be my niche.
I appreciate the newer format of saving details that some don’t want until an appendix at the end.
Thank you. It seems to be a format that is working, allowing me to be more in depth than most reviewers but giving an off-ramp for those who want less detail.
One thing I noticed with recent Sony designs is use of dual focusing groups.
All the 4 motor lens do this including, but not limited to, the 50/1.2, 24-70/2.8 GMII, 20/1.8, etc.
This seems to allow faster focusing because each group traverse less and better close focusing.
The rear group seems to occupy the "floating element" placement of manual focus lenses of yore.
Sony has really cracked the code for enabling top notch AF even in the more complex lenses.
Woohoo, cat finally runs free 😁
And she's very happy about it!
I would have much rather had a 24-50 / 60mm lens instead of 28-70. The wider positions 24-28mm are more important than 50-70mm to me personally. This is why I went with the 24-70mm GM II versus say the Tamron 28-75mm.
Fair enough.
I'm convinced. Thank you for this thorough review.
Glad it was helpful!
Hey Dustin, you are the reviewer one I have found so far that tested this lens for astro which is sweet! Did you shoot any tracked images with it?
I did not.
20:22 - are there any decentering issues? Why does the left upper corner looks SO MUCH WORSE than the bottom right corner?
Thank you
I didn't really see decentering issues, no.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Hmm, interesting. I wonder why there's such a drastic difference in corner performance.
I’m curious how it compares to the 24-70/28 GM II -‘d the Tamron 35-150/2-2.8
That would be interesting. Unfortunately the only lens I have on hand is the Tamron.
@@DustinAbbottTWI th-cam.com/video/IMexPR1jQCk/w-d-xo.html It seems like 28-70 F2 is better than GM II.
Please, if you get a chance, do a comparison review, you always go so in depth.
A lot of people would be very interested in how it compares in optical performance vs 24-35-50-85 primes, myself included.
If it has comparable sharpens to the primes at 1.4, it will be a very compelling option, albeit the veiling issue is very prominent, 35 GM is so much better in that regard.
I'm not sure how useful 28-70 F2 is going to be in the real world because of this.
Had a feeling I'd be seeing this today on your channel, Dustin. Well done!
Thanks again!
is there more correction in post needed with this sony over the canon version of this 28-70 f2 ? the canon
28-70 2.8 did not have as much ghosting right ?
The Canon needs more corrections.
@ oh so what’s better about the canon f2 version ? Less Ghosting is one right ?
@DustinAbbottWI I see you haven't reviewed the Sony A9 III or the A 1 II yet. Look forward to seeing your take on both. Thanks
I've really wanted to review them both, too, but so far Sony hasn't followed through on their promise to get me review copies.
Top review as always. Great lens however for me personally, no 24mm is the deal breaker and that is why I sold my 28-75mm Tamron and went with the 24-70mm f2.8 GM II.
You are unlikely to see 24mm on a lens like this in the near future. That would result in a lens much larger and heavier and also less optically exceptional. There's a reason the two such lenses that exist only go to 28mm.
Nice!. Way over my budget, but nice!
Would love to see a 20-60 (or 20-55) f2.8 too.
The tamron 20-40 is nice, but would love a bit longer focal length.
That's going to be a pretty common reaction, I think.
Looks fabulous, specs, af and rendering. A no brainer if I was a Sony shooter (Nikon shooter). Nice walk through, thanks 🎉
Yup. This one won't be coming to Nikon except by Megadap!
Some uncanny hybrid performance with this lens. I'm curious about how you feel about the overall performance vs. the 28-45 sigma in that focal range. At a little over 1/2 the focal range for less than 1/2 the price. I think some enthusiasts and professionals will have a hard time choosing between the two. Any thoughts?
@dima1353 Yes, I can see that extending to 70mm is going to give a good blend of wide framing to reach. Maybe a certain photographer would give up the 24-28mm range for certain applications, but for 2.0-2.8, I can't compare a 24-70/28-75 to something like a 28-70. It's really why I asked about the 28-45. This seems more suited for hybrid, and that means videography. It's really in that arena. I can understand the compromises for range and weight for light in this hybrid context. Maybe I'm not so keen on how people have used the 28-70 f2 for canon, but something always struck me that it was an engineering flex than an industry defining tool, especially with so many competitive f2.8 lenses with greater range.
@@dleise I've got the sigma 28-45 and it's a really fantastic lens. The bokeh is fine but probably my only critique of the lens, it just doesn't quite give me that "wow" feeling that some of my other lenses do, but I'm being picky there. I mainly use it for wedding photos and video. I'm in two minds over whether I'll eventually change it to this sony - I always have a second camera body on me with a longer lens, so I'm not sure I really need any extra reach on my "wider" body. It's tempting but for the price and the weakness in backlit situations I don't think it's worth it over the sigma (for my use case at least). If I wanted to switch to only using one camera body all day, then that would be a different story and I'd probably make the switch.
@kingweddingmedia This is great insight. Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. I rented the 28-45 and had a great time, especially considering the sharpness at minimum focus distance, magnification, and internal zoom design. If you ever get to use the Sony, please let me know if these features are as favorable for the Sigma as I believe they are.
I liked the Sigma, though obviously I like this zoom range more. You obviously have to really want the versality of this lens to pay for it, however. It really comes down to your actual shooting needs.
@@kingweddingmedia That's what I use at work 99% of the time, 1 camera 1 lens (a7Siii Sigma 28-70mmf2.8) so this 28-70mmf2 would be a fantastic upgrade & the weight increase is manageable
How is it compared to the 28-45 1.8 from Sigma?
Hi Dustin, same question here. To be more precise the comparision of their image quality of the same range.
The Sony is sharper (though both are incredibly sharp), and I might give a very slight rendering edge to the Sigma. It does have the advantage of that extra one third of light gathering, so a little more subject isolation over the shared range.
@ Many thanks for your invaluable input.
Helpful review. May I plase ask you what is the tripod the camera is mounted on during your face time?
Oben Tabletop Tripod shown in video: bhpho.to/3vL8YWy
Gerald Undone, during his testing, found that at close up photos there is a lot of softness and lack of sharpness. Is this true with your testing?
I didn't find it soft up close, but I did find that the plane of focus isn't particularly flat.
Maybe this is weird but i absolutely love how the flare looks on this lens
you're right about weird 😁
It's not weird, the flare looks nice on this lens. There are lots of photographers who like to incorporate flare into their work. It's a nice creative effect.
There's a lot of aesthetics that are subjective. Some will like them, others hate them.
@@adamadamis I like the flare, it's like an artistic filter that's always on 😅
I'm curious to know if you prefer this lens to the Sigma 28-45mm, you said the Sigma has something special like if it was a Zeiss lens, mentioning the colors and rendering. How about the Sony ?
I prefer the focal range, but optically, no, I wouldn't say it is better. Sharper, yes, but at best equal with the sigma in terms of rendering.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I just got the Sigma and indeed the rendering is georgous.
To the question in subject
I wonder when sony have proper tiltshift lens like canon or it already exist but i forgotten them 🤔
Not really.
Thank you Dustin
You're welcome!
Hello! Would you sell your 24-70 GM ii for the 28-70 GM?
I don't own the 24-70mm, but I do own the Tamron 35-150mm F2-F2.8 VXD, a lens that I'm very happy with.
@@DustinAbbottTWI HI could u do an comparison between these 2 lens as i own a 35-150. would like to know is it worth the upgrade especially in terms of portrait photography. thank you
bravo Sony, took a little while but what a splash, great review video as usual 👌
Thank you very much.
It is not a standard lens that all people can buy, like the 24-105 F/4. It is a top of the tops, luxury option, and currently only available for the Canon and SONY systems. It is expected to be quite a bit more expensive than the 24-70 F/2.8, similar to how the F2.8 zooms are pricier than the F4 ones.
Luxury? Does it come with a butler to carry it when I am not using it?
@Tugela60 I just checked the specs again, and I don't think you're getting a butler included in the box, sorry.
That's fair.
Great lens. But I wonder how is it compare to Tamron 28 -75. I always recommend Tamron to any Sony shooter, as must have lens, I have it myself and I love it, is there’s enough reasons I should get Sony and pay double? I am replacing my lenses with GMs when it make sense. I like new Sony lenses, they start to have colors, unfortunately prices are not friendly, so I have to have some priorities in place. Great review as always. Thank you
Well, in this case the Sony will cost triple. The answer to the question is complicated. For some people, the answer is yes, as this will give a superlative performance and more subject isolation. You could also buy the Tamron and another several prime lenses to achieve similar or even superior subject isolation, so it really comes down to your needs.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Yes, I agree. for the moment I am happy with Tamron, but I like to change things around, and try new things. Unfortunately nobody send me lenses to play with, so every time i do, it cost few bucks. To minimize my losses, I watch reviews and do some researches. But it make my life much easier when experts like, who I can trusted, do deep dive and give it to me on silver platter. Thank you for your great work
I have the canon but who says we can’t have both, Well done Dustin! I must have a boring life this is the highlight of my day!
Glad to bring you some joy!
So this is somehow lighter and shorter than the Sigma 18-45mm f/1.8. Overall mastermind engineering behind the GM lineup.
Sony has been really effective at reducing size in some of the potentially big lenses. Their ability to grind certain optical glass elements that no one else has done is pretty impressive.
This lens looks cool! Coukd be 26-70 but alright at keast we got 70 not 60
Fair enough.
I was on holiday this summer with my A1 & 24-70 GM II. There were some photos where I wished I had a different lens for a different look. I missed not only the quantity but the quality of the bokeh and the rendering of the 50mm 1.2 GM. I missed the unique look of Laowa 35mm 0.95 and of course there were times when I wished for something wider or longer but that's not our point here.
As much as this lens is a monster (in physical dimensions & also performance) for event/wedding photographers (and I would argue getting 1 stop more light is really unneeded at this point), It's still not going to cut it when you are looking for a good mix of quality and quantity in bokeh only possible by prime lenses (or maybe tele-zoom instruments where the quantity often also makes up for quality). Also for travel there are many opportunities where a 24mm makes a huge difference compared to 28mm.
Do paid customers care about bokeh, transitions, highlights, rendering and god forbid that 3d pop as much as photography geeks? No and that is precisely why this lens will excel. It will get the job done.
My verdict: It's a hell of a lot of lens. Sony did it, but not for me. Too many aspherics messing up the bokeh, nasty mechanical vignetting.
Fair enough. Some people seem to love lenses like this, others find them just a waste of money.
Sony, please provide Dustin with the new A1II. If anyone he should review it!
My Sony contact has said that I should see one fairly soon.
I have hard time believing that vignetting is really that low. I suspect the raw file contains corrections that are automatically applied. I wonder if Lightroom says that.
I hear that rumor, but I'm just going off of what I see from hundreds of other E-mount reviews. Same process, but very different outcomes.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Nikon also started including corrections in NEF file one day. I expect all manufacturers will be doing the same, because it helps with lens design and using such a lens w/o corrections doesn't make sense. Anybody thinking of using Sony lenses on adapter on Nikon could be for a big surprise.
@@ElementaryWatson-123 That depends on the adapter. With the Megadap, it feels like I'm getting some corrections even in video.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I think (not sure) Megadap tells camera that it's some Nikon G lens, so perhaps those corrections are applied to jpeg and video.
If Canon ever opens up their mount I hope Sony makes lenses for them 😂😂😂😂😂😂
If you like your lenses 6 years late, I guess. Lol Sony is definitely not the innovators in the lens department, to say the least.
@derekv6479 - I'm not sure you can say they aren't innovators, when they routinely produce glass elements that no one else has made, the best autofocus system designs in their lenses I've ever seen, and thus routinely produce pro grade lenses that are smaller and lighter than competing lenses.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I don't know. I've never been the, OMG This F1.4 weighs 100g less?!?!?! Let me get rid of my 1.2 yesterday!" Type of photographer. Unless we're talking about kilograms, I simply don't care about compactness and weight innovations. I don't consider them such. Optical performance and abilities is all I care about period. As such, Sony makes great lenses, but I'd be hard-pressed to call them innovators when that criteria is taken.
@@derekv6479 I have tremendous respect for all camera brands as the competition between them is making us getting closer to that one perfect camera and a perfect lens, but, opinions are subjective and as such sony is an innovator in the lens department too, like the nearly 10 years old FE 90mm f2.8 Macro is a genius design with its MF/AF front clutch mechanism and its a very sharp lens. I love capturing insects and that lens is one of the reasons I stayed with Sony FF as non of canon EF or RF macro lenses are as good as that lens. I think, only the new Nikkor 105mm macro is as good. I never used any 85mm for portraits either because i use it (FE 90mm macro) for that purpose too. Yes, the olympus OM 1 ii with 90mm macro would win the overall battle of macro but then it comes with the limitation of a non FF system and the depth of field.
@@TW-iu9zy R1 is best of class in everything but megapixels.
let's hope sony will do better than nikon Z6III with the next A7V.
Fair enough.
Another fantastic review. For me I’d rather get the Sigma 24 70 as the extra 4mm wide is significant. Plus the extra stop is not worth $1700-$1900 vs a Sigma or Tamron alternative.
Fair enough.
Still watching
Not surprised!
The only reason why this lens is lighter is because it relies more on s/w gimmick to correct the images vs the glass elements in the Canon. Guarantee the flaw will start to appear if this lens is used on older bodies w/o all the fancy s/w correction features. The same Sony trolls for months said this will be a 24-70 F2 but lacks the basic understanding in optics to know that's next to impossible using their shitty mount.
That's really not true. My experience is that Canon is relying MUCH more on electronic corrections than Sony right now.
… well, what a boring and meaningless comment. 🥱
Hahaha I have switched 1year ago from Canon to Sony, don’t be in love whit any brand, it’s simple Sony it’s doing better now
We won’t a 85 1.2
Not anytime soon, I don't think.
almost 6yrs. must much better 😉
Yes, that's fair, though Canon has persisted in maintaining some of the same problems even with newer lenses.
I Love my RF 85 1.2… but I feel a system switch coming about… 😌
Not sure what you would realistically get for switching.
@ Sharper photos… better video… A wide selection of lenses for much better prices. I switched to Sony before. Had an A7R2 & A73. I switched back because of the photo color and the RF85 1.2 being the most superior 85 at the time (I’ve bought 6 different 85’s in search of the best one). Now Sony has a better 85, better 135, their colors have improved and the video quality is still superior… So… realistically… those things… lol
@markdbey jesus that sounds like such a hassle. What do you do for a living?
@@axelfiraxa 😭😭😭😭 I just manage a couple of HVAC companies and really don’t shoot enough to justify any of these purchases… 😭😭😭
You are just having GAS lol. Any modern lenses will allow you to take fantastic photos. This lens is sharper but in Irene's sample (a portrait photographer) it shows that the colours might be slightly weaker than Canon. Sony is lighter, so both systems have their own pros and cons, but both are very capable.
20-70….24-70….24-50….28-70…..jeez Sony give us some variation.How about an updated 100-400 or a new 24-105……
Agree. A 2.8 24-105 would be more helpful.
Sony is to a place where they have a lot of the bases covered, so it allows them to experiment a bit more.
@@DustinAbbottTWI at a cost of almost $3000 it is not an experiment that MOST of us wish to take part in….
Thank you buddy, you just got your self a new subscriber, feel free to...;)
Great! Do you have 100,000 friends you could bring over as well ;)
So now just to show their superiority, Canon releases the new RF 24-75 f/2 lens.....weighing in at 900g and costing $2500.....hehehehehe!!!
Good luck with that!
Nice
Thanks for watching!
I guess there’s a price to pay (beside the $$$) for all those specialty glass elements regarding the flaring despite all the modern coatings. Very bad on this lens but that was it’s only real negative besides the bulk and price. Great review as usual Dustin.
Yes, I'm not a fan of the flare.
Nice , but not for me
Fair enough. It's too expensive to be a lens for everyone.
28mm zooms makes me sad :(
It probably will be a long time before you see an F2 zoom like this starting at 24mm. That will add a lot of size, weight, and expense.
@@DustinAbbottTWI oh i know about the physical limitations. Just you don't really need the long end. Wider is better IMO. Something like a 20 or 24-50 f/2 would be awesome. I don't find the 28mm end interesting. It's just not wide enough.
😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴
I'm not quite sure what you're saying, but thumbs up!
Better than the Canon version with it's terrible breathing, weight, and slow auto focus.
This lens is amazing!
Canon’s autofocus is fast on this lens. Could you be thinking about one of their f/1.2s?
Other than ski jumping i never had focus speed be a problem with the Canon over the past year. Not sure in what context the focus is slow for you.
I own the Canon for about 3 years. Breathing is literally zero issue in the real world photography (which I do with it). Weight is substantial but I own and use even heavier lenses and have no problems with it. You can just exercise more :-). Slow AF is a BS, it focuses comfortably fast for ramping dogs or children. I am not missing shots with this lens because of the slow AF.
What body do you use it on? With mine R3 and R5II it is just perfect lens.
@@petrpohnan875 I am also surprised about the comment on breathing. I never noticed it in practice, unless i guess if they do video but neither the Canon nor the Sony is really the right form factor for video.
$3k price tag gets a big LOL from me.
Well, you can always buy 28-70/2 for $200 if anyone sells it at this price....
Those people wanting the best of the best for a price of cheap crap.
Not in everyone's budget, for sure.
Wow, the bokeh really isn't my cup of tea. Seems rather boring and lacking any character. In some pictures in medium distance it's even a bit nervous. I'd have expected a bit more in this department. But well, people have quite a diverse idea on what an appealing bokeh looks like.
We are not all true connoisseurs like you I am afraid.
@Tugela60 Fair assessment. 😂
I actually thought it as pretty good for a lens like this, but yes, it is subjective.
@@Tugela60 I kinda like the phrase "nervous bokeh" 😅 "jittery" might be another good term