It's clear how much time and thought you put into these videos. Purchasing even these mid-range Canon lenses is an enormous financial commitment for most people, so it's incredibly valuable to have reliable reviews like this. You've really become the gold standard for them.
I’ve been searching credible reviews daily and have found ANY reviews outside of one. I literally searched hours before you posted and nothing new. Then I opened UA-cam and it was right there at the top of my algorithm like a gift. I’ve watched like 4 times. Thank you!
Excellent and complete lens comparison. The 24-70 f2.8 lens is the most balanced. It's hard to think of anything better. Fast and accurate focusing, sharp across the entire frame field for photos, small focus breathing for videos. The focal length range covers most of the needs. I take it on a trip or a combination of 15-35 2.8 plus 70-200 f4.
This is a wonderful review! Love how you compared it to so many different lenses and even included the part on the number of steps needed to compensate for the 28mm v 24mm ! Love your videos ❤
Used it during my 3 week vacation. It was expensive but I'm glad I got it. It's a great lens paired with R8 for photo and video. Basically never took it off my camera.
Now, I'm confused. I was considering the RF 28-70 f/2.8 until I read the review at The Digital Picture. Bryan tested it and showed that the mid-frame and periphery at wide angle and normal focal lengths were pretty soft. His Image Quality tool bears that out. When comparing the RF 28-70 f/2.8 with the RF 24-105 f/4L (which I own) and the older EF 24-70 F/2.8L II (which I used to own) on his Image Quality tool, the RF 28-70 f/2.8 looks pretty soft everywhere but the center. Your comparison doesn't show that at all! Do you think you got a much better copy?
James, Really well done, thorough and methodical review. I’ve owned three copies of the rf24-105 f4 over the years and just never grew to like it. Am so encouraged by your review and will likely pick this new 28-70 f2.8 up. Cheers
Great comparison. These Canon mid priced lenses are important for the working photographer. Performance and price is critical for my work. I am event shooter. I work in crowded environments. Recently someone knock over my tripod and crushed my 70-200mm L lens. That was a $2700 loss for me. This is so needed out in the field. For years I used Sigma lenses the were reasonably priced and lower risk in the field. I am always on edge when using my 28-70 f2 and my 86 1.2 both $3000 lenses in the field. Studio work is different. Info rarely get to work in a controlled environment.
Wow, thank you for your review!!! I knew I could count on you for this great review. I am really surprised on the new lens performance. I didn't think it would outperform the 24-105 like this. I did trade my 24-105 for the 28-70 2.8. The vignette don't really bother me since I'm always editing my files anyways. I prefer the 2.8 over the 4.0 for video and the weight for gimbal is awesome. As always great video.
Thank you so much for watching! It’s possible I had a weak copy of the 24-105 here as in the past I have found it to perform a bit better centrally at least. I’m still confident that this new lens at least matches its performance though considering how well it performs against all the other lenses. Canon did a great job with this release!
I bought that lens for My R8 and IT repleased everything except 100-400 IS STM. Just love it small and lightweight and dead silent lens. Dont need anything else.
Wonderful review James. As a wedding shooter my 28-70 f/2 almost never leaves at least one of my cameras. I have the 24-105 f/4 as a travel/everyday lens. If anything I can see this review making me think about possibly selling the 24-105 f/4 for the new 28-70 f/2.8 as an everyday/travel lens.
I agree. I have the 24-105 for travel and 35mm + 85mm stm primes for portraits, but now I’m consider selling everything for this 28-70! Have you concluded what you’re going to do with your 24-105?
@@sheynewton9061 Still considering it. I'm leaning to selling the 24-105 f4 and getting this new 28-70 f2.8. My hesitation is that I'd be tradling an L lens for a non-L lens. I need more info about how durable it is.
I just bought the 28-70 STM for a trip to Alaska for both video & photos. It worked really well. I own the L 24-70 USM but its big & heavy for travel when youre shooting all day.
Christmas came early!!! This is exactly the type of comparison and analysis I was waiting so long for! Thank you so much! This has definitely influenced my decision to get one! The size and weight is perfect for me. i can’t wait to see how it performs in the dessert and a follow up travel video!
@ even after a few months, there just isn’t anyone doing the comparison that was done here! i’ve been dying to see a head to head with the 24-105. the other two was such a nice bonus. thank you!
Incredible thorough review! Appreciate all the work it must have taken to do this. Your comparisons are the best! Can't wait to see if you decide to sell the RF 24-70 2.8 for this because I'm considering the same. The L weight definitely limits its use for me. Other than 4mm, what really is the drawback vs the L? Thank you.
Hi James, thank you for your extensive and very informative review of the RF 28-70 2.8 IS STM lens and how it stacks up against some of Canon's other L series lenses. I'm amazed by the clarity of this new lens compared to the RF 24-105 F4 that I was contemplating purchasing when this new lens came out. One of the things you mentioned that was a little bit of a negative for me was the loss in wide angle distance in paticular for travel photos. However, I think I might have over come this with the purchased an RF 16 mm F2.8 previously that would cover off wide angle images nicely. So I guess the long and the short is, I will purchase this new lens as the quality is excellent stacked up against the RF 24-105 F4, which costs quite a bit more. I've recently upgraded from my EF lenses 24-105 F4, EF 10-18 and 80D camera. I'd be interested in your travel photos and review of this lens when you get back. Tx. Kent
James, help! Let me know what you think. I am a hobbyist whose “work” consists of some portrait photography as well as travel documentation. I currently have the RF 35mm 1.8, 85mm 2, and 24-105mm 4 shooting on the R8. This new 28-70mm 2.8 seems like it’s everything I need (lightweight, compact, wide F2.8, and a zoom lens) . If you were me, would you replace the 28-70 for any of these lenses I already own and if so, which ones! The 35 and 85 have macro and yes I’ve used it for fun, but it’s not something I’m ALWAYS doing so I don’t think I will miss any macro capabilities should you say to get rid of either. Hoping to hear your verdict soon!
Hey! I would hang on to both of the primes. I guess the decision comes down to 28-70 vs 24-105. It’s a tough one, because your primes give you more of a low light advantage over the 28-70. I would be tempted to stick to your current setup unless you find your self using the zoom a lot more than the primes?
Don't change a thing, you have the range with the 24-105 when the light is abundant and 2 capable primes for when the lighting conditions aren't ideal. If you should change anything, get a faster wide prime, like a 24/1.8 so you have the range along with fast aperture with those 3 primes combined. (I would advise a Sigma 20/1.4 but that would require an adapter as well and it's a big and hefty combo).
Awesome. Thanks for the most anticipated review for the budget photographers like me. I will purchase this lens and sell my 24-105mm STM (F4-7.1) lens.
Got this lens as soon as it was available and sold my EF 24-70mm f2.8L II USM, shedding half the weight, when you take the EF to RF adapter into account. I call this my "No-eL" lens. Merry Christmas! I put a green rubber band on it, with a few red twist-ties as a bit of a seasonal joke. PS I have the RF 16mm and 85mm primes, which extend the range at both ends, and the EF 200mm F2.8L II as well (and the EF 1.4x TC). Interesting thing is that the Sigma RF-S 18-50mm f2.8 covers a similar range on my R7, and its images look similar - but my R6 Mark II does better at higher ISOs.
I’m deciding between the RF Sigma and this one right now for my R7 , I’m not sure if I’ll move to FF but I’m not bothered about it not being 24-70 on my r7 my more interested in getting a better quality zoom than my rf -s 18-150mm , any advice ? Thanks
Sounds like I must try this lens. I have the 35mm 1.8 which I bought over the 28mm 2.8. also had the 50mm 1.8 shortly, but due to its build it got dust under it after one day never had that with any lens. So feel its the design or a bad copy. Was thinking of buying the 28mm and 50mm because they are tiny and lightweight, but this lens gave me another option and gives vr to the Canon R8 which does not have ibis. Just need to get over that price its not really cheap I would even call it L glass pricing. Good to hear the performance is there. Dont really know if I would like the distortion though. It bothers me a bit on the kit lens I have 24-105mm f/4-7.1
Thanks James for yet again one of the best reviews and comparisons available on the whole internet. I much appreciate the efforts you're seeing to give us comprehensive comparisons and your insights. It's a lot of work you're putting together but it's really worth it! One thing I would have loved to hear is your view on which is best bang for the buck - I understood the new kid in the block caught your attention if you even consider selling the 24-70mm. Keep them great videos coming! :)
I primarily use my kit for travel & landscape. Weight is always a concern. I bought the 28-70 f2.8 shortly after it came out. Getting ready to sell my 24-104 f4 so my kit will be the 14-35 f4/ 24 f1.8/ 35 f1.8/ 28-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f4. these along with my R8 make a kit that is less than 7#. Easy on the back if I carry everything along with my Angelbird Cyan tripod. Usually I carry a 6 liter bag with the 35, the 16 f2.8, the 28-70 f2.8 and the 70-200 for everyday general use. about a 5# kit. Gets me most of what I want even indoors. the 28-70 f2.8 quickly became one of my favorites.
Excellent effort in making this monster comparison. Looks really solid for 28mm-friendly travelers or everyday shooters. Excited to try at some point... not sure if the retractable design is something I could get past or not. If you have dark skies on the desert trip I'd love to see some star shots. Travel safe!
Thanks for watching Dan! I hope you get your hands on one soon, would love to know what you think of it. I’ll try to get some nightscape shots with it too
I was very happy to find that, on an R7 (APS-C), the new 28-70mm IS STM f/2.8 produces pinpoint stars corner to corner on astrophotos! Some chromatic aberration on bright stars, and very slight coma in the very corners, so not perfect (no such thing exists anyway), but not bad and easily corrected in post. This level of performance is throughout the zoom range. I was not expecting such excellent performance on astro, so I'm very happy indeed. (Ditto the 85mm f/2.0 prime, too, btw.)
Been waiting specifically for your review on this lens for a couple of weeks now!! Glad to see it and hyped to get this lens. Thank you for making the video!
I think if more people buy this 28-70mm f2.8 IS STM and it is the first STM lens to have weather sealed, that would enable Canon to make more weather sealed STM lens.
Superb comparison! Have been looking for this to potentially replace my current travel lens: the 24-105 STM. In terms of getting a wider shot than 28mm for those close space, you can always take multiple vertical shots and stitch them together in lightroom. I also take the 16mm pancake for those super wide landscape occasions ;-).
I can’t wait for the day Canon makes a 50-135mm lens, 35-105mm, or even 50-105mm for us portrait photographers that also do travel documentation! 24-70 not enough reach and 70-200 is not wide enough. And not all photographers need that snappy nano-usm so I’m glad this new stm is quick enough! Please Canon!
@@andrewb4048 there are some videos, but I can't deal with finding them now. Anyway, it's not a huge difference between them but the new RF one is just a bit more "tight" i.e. better corner sharpness, slightly better bokeh, and a better focusing motor. Which made me choose the RF, I wanted a second hand EF version but several units I have tried were decentered and performed poorly. So I went for the RF in spite of the price difference. Central sharpness is comparable between them, but both should be better than the Sigma in the peripheral parts of the frame because it exhibits more field curvature. I am very happy with my lens, but the EF II will be good if you are more budget constrained, just go for a new one if you decide on it, because it might be tricky finding a good second hand unit. One thing that is pretty noticeable to me with RF vs EF lenses (of which I have 3, and only one RF lens, the 24-70) is that the RF has better stabilization as well a quieter and a faster motor, and the EF lenses I have aren't slouches either - 85/1.4L IS, 70-200/2.8 IS III and 35/2 IS. But the RF 24-70 is in its own league with how silent and fast it is, making the other lenses feel a bit dated. One aspect where I think Canon messed up is the exterior finish and overall materials used. EF lenses age very well from my experience, and while my RF 24-70 is a few months old and still in mint condition, the RF lenses seem to pick up more scratches and get "shiny" barrels because Canon opted for a fine matte finish. Not something to worry about functionally, but I don't think most of these RF lenses will age as well as their EF counterparts. This is already visible in various YT reviews where the wear is noticeable on the lens bodies, on fairly new lenses.
As a wedding and event photographer I usually shoot at indoor venues where there’s lots of terrible led lighting and the coatings on the lenses on the l series lenses really help in keeping the ghosting and flaring down and the cheaper canon glass just carnt perform that well at all under these conditions so the non l series glass just doesn’t cut it
Great review, James! You are one of the first to review this one and the comparisons make soooo much sense !!! As always, hitting on the stuff that really matters, I enjoyed it a lot but had difficulty not getting confused with all these lenses being so close in naming, except for the 24-105, but that is probably just me. And yes, the 24-105 f/4 shows its limitations but... it is 1500€ here in Belgium, while this 28-70 f/2.8 is almost as expensive at 1319€. Here are my thoughts: yes, the new 28-70 looks really sharp. But if you have the 28-70 L f/2, would you replace it with the new 2.8, really? The f/2 is a lot larger and 3 times as expensive, so for somebody on a budget the new 28-70 is .... too expensive still. I find it cannot match the 24-105 in versatility and budget people are not going to buy a bag full of lenses. In my mind it is not good enough for pros and too expensive and specialized for budget photographers. Compare the new 28-70 for street and landscape with the 28mm f/2.8 pancake at 360 € only and you'll know what I mean. The 35 f/1.8 is 590€ , the 50 f/1.8 is 240€ and the 85 f/2 is 720€. Add those primes up: 360+590+240+720 is 1910€ worth of brighter kit with a wider reach. I already have the 28, so for me it would be 1550€. I would not hesitate a second. I'd go for the brighter primes. In my mind it does have a place with video makers, trying to compete (and failing to?) with Sigma. So many compromises have been made to make it light weight. If this were a 600 $ lens, yes, but at 1300+€ this is by no means a bargain. The only thing this lens has going for it in my mind is the fact that Canon has no competition on RF full frame. I'm pretty sure when Chris Frost looks at this one it will not get the highly recommended score.
Thank you Philippe! I hope you are well. It was definitely a confusing one to put together at times, we have so many standard zooms now! Yes I agree I wish Canon priced this at under €1000, as usual as Canon shooters we seem to pay more than everyone else whilst making allowances for strange design choices. I'm excited to see what other reviews think of this lens.
First: What? you are english and i just notice this at the end?! Second: You prefer the new lens than the 24-70 2.8? Great video by the way. I don´t decide yet which i buy...
Also, this is a really great review and comparison! I've been using the Tamron G2 24-70 adapted for the last year or so. It's a great lens, but man is it heavy! The biggest appeal of this new 28-70 is its weight. Seriously considering trading up to this lens!
Hmmm, now I am thinking about returning my 24-105mm F/4L that I just bought a few days ago... I can buy this 28-70mm F/2.8 for the same price.. What should I do... Going to mainly use it for city trips, car/motorcycle shootings, forest (I also have the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM and the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM)
Such a fantastic comparison thank you as always 😊 this new one is certainly on my shopping list for next year. Currently using the Sigma EF 24-70 but my aim next year is to ditch using the adapter and go fully native RF so having this one at a decent price point definitely will help as there’s no way I can afford the others lol. Nice to see this one holds up in most areas compared to the much more expensive options.
Hi James, is there so much difference in performance between RF and EF lenses? I bought an R6 and I was thinking to buy also an RF. I normally use the EF 24-70 in my work. Does it make sense to buy the 24-70 or 28-70RF? Thanks in advance for your help.
This is an amazing in depth comparison and exactly what I've been looking for on this lens (I actually wish all lens reviews were this thorough). Can't wait to hear how your experience goes when traveling at the end of the month. I'm also trying to decide to go with that or keep my 24-70 f2.8, mainly because I do an equal mix of video work and the lighter weight is more ideal for balancing on my gimbal.
Thank you! I have been waiting and waiting for a detailed and intelligent review. You really covered everything! I have an RF 24-105 f/4 and an EF 24-70 f/2.8 ii. The RF 28-70 f/2.8 looks like a really good value option with much better image quality and AF performance than I expected. Maybe it would be a nice option as a smaller, lighter all-arounder for my R5 and R8.
Thank you Allen! I think this lens would be a dream paired with the R8 in particular. It’s possible I had a weak copy of the 24-105 though, so bear in mind the sharpness results are probably most similar centrally at least
Great video! I have a 28-70 2.0, and love it, but when the new 2.8 got announced, I was curious if i should sell the 2.0 for this, mainly due to how much lighter and smaller it is. The debate continues haha, but this video helped!
Very useful video, thank you! I'm very surprised at the poor performance of the 24-105 here. Especially compared to your review videos of the 24-105, where it seemed to hold up much better against the much more expensive L lenses, being just as sharp or close to it as the more expensive lenses. In this video it's just a blurry mess.
I thought you missed focus on the 24-105, but damn is it really that soft at the long end? I know it's one of the older RF lenses, but the sharpness drops off so much.
Hello James. Thanks for the video. Can you tell me how it performs on an aps-c sensor? I know about the apparent focal range that will be different, but it's not a big deal for the purpose I plan for it. I'm looking for a zoom with a good max aperture to use in low light conditions (indoor and outdoor). I find the new sigma 17-50 little short and according to some reviews, the RF 24-105 F4L is not a good choice for aps-c not performing well on that sensor size. My budget limit is the price of this one. (For R7 and R10). I have the sigma 17-70 f2,8-4C for reflex, but since I recently bought the R7, I tend to find it not as good as on the 80D and R10 but I need to test it more. Just wondering wich lens could be an alternative.
Thank you so much for this review! Many of us have been waiting for it. I’m impressed with the sharpness and overall quality of this lens. Now, for me, there’s only one last thing to find out. This lens (brand new) and the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II USM (used) are available at the same price. Which one of these two would you choose?
Thank you for watching! For size and weight I would go for the new lens, otherwise I’m sure the EF lens is just as good optically with a bit of an extended focal range at the wide end. But that is a hard choice, I personally would rather not have to use an adapter
Thank you for this review James. I was waiting for it :). I am not very pleased with digital lens corrections, but that's the route Canon seems to take.
Super interesting finding regarding the sharpness. I use a 15-35 a lot and when I use my 24-70 I mostly use it at 40 to 70mm. Makes me tempted to sell my 24-70 and buy the 28-70, then spend the spare money on a trip or 2 five guys meals
What’s disappointing to me is the price is still quite high for what it is. The extra gutpunch is Tamron was making similar lenses for Sony 5 years ago for a few hundred less brand new.
Just purchased this lens on the strength of this review and I have to say, I’m a bit disappointed. At 28mm and 70mm the centre is sharp, even at f2.8 but the mid frame to corners are not great, even stopped down. Maybe I have a bad copy? I’m also using it on the R5, which will test the lens. Think I may return it and save up for the RF24-70mm f2.8 L
Your comments and especially the comparisons are very complete, better than any other video I usually watch. Perhaps, it would be useful additional information if you mention your opinion on contrast and tint differences, although it is quite clear in the comparisons you show. Thank you very much James for your thorough work. I will share it in the Canonistas argentinos group I manage.
For portraits would you think it wise to replace the RF 50 1.8 and 35 1.8 with this lens? And how do you think it compares with the rf85 f2? though focal length difference is apparent
Seems like this 28-70 f2.8 holds up pretty dang well against the L lens. I do see a lot of people going for this over the L versions because at this point people are literally paying for that red strip.
Another epic review James, I was interested to understand how it performs against the 24-70 f2.8 - seems a pretty capable lens for the price. The 35mm 1.8 and the 5.0mm 1.8 together in AUD is around $1200 and the 28-70 f2.8 is $1800, very sharp and fast and weather sealed. Interesting.
Are you sure your 24-105 F4 doesn't have any issue ? I have this lens and it doesn't look so soft even in the corners. Also the quality of a lens is not only corner sharpness, it also comes down to color rendition, micro contrast, 3D feel, flare resistance, bokeh rendering, etc. In these aspects, I would be curious to see how the new 28-70 performs against the 24-70 / 24-105.
It’s possible I was given a poor copy. I’ve used many copies of this lens and it definitely has some sample variation but I’ve always been really happy with the 24-105
I see, did it come as a kit with the camera ? I’ve heard that zooms coming with bodies are sometimes of a little less good quality than when bought stand alone… I could never verify though. But mine is really good so I was surprised with your results. Anyway thanks a lot for your review about the 28-70.
Thank you for making this video! It seems like the 28-70 2.8 is very sharp compared to the 24-70 f2.8. If only the lens came out sooner as I already bought the 24-70. Looking forward to the review if you're going to keep the 28-70 over the 24-70!
Thanks James. You do the best lens comparisons. I wanted to buy the 24-105 (f4), but I liked the 28-70 (f2.8). Lightweight, compact size. The photo quality is very good. but I like the 24-105 for its focal lengths. wide angle 24 and more zoom to 105mm. I will compare all the strengths and weaknesses of both lenses to find a compromise for myself. Thank you very much for the review. P.S. Special thanks for the links to your photos.
Thank you so much for watching! That’s a really hard choice, both are great lenses. I personally love the 24-105 range but the new lens is really great too.
I've got a Nikon 24-70 f/4 that has the same retracting function. Took me by surprise the first time too. I would add that on my Canon I use the 24-105 - I can't live without that extra length on the long end. While I do shoot quite a bit of landscape, I would point out that one just doesn't shoot landscape wide open. I think this new lens may not be for me - but it is brilliant.
@@JamesReader I think it's exactly what you said in the video - it packs up a lot smaller. The Nikon, like the Canon, loses around 25mm when retracted, and that can be a big deal for a travel photographer, or a person who is new to SLRs and wants to limit the size of their lens kit. I think it helps make the whole SLR/Mirrorless thing less intimidating.
Thanks for this review and especially for the raw files. I have been underwhelmed by the two RF 24-105/4L lenses I've owned. Your files showed the 28-70 to be dramatically better than the 24-105. In fact the detail in the 24-105 was so smeared I wonder if there is a problem with that lens. Nevertheless, the 28-70 could be a replacement - the reduction in range is compensated by the brighter aperture and smaller size and weight.
My first one was sharper than the EF lens it replaced, but became decentered. The replacement was softer than the first, so I repaired the first. Its okay for event photography, but on my R5, but struggles when I print landscapes at A2 size (16x20 inch).
Great to see these results. a lot of stuff posted online seemed to show that the lens was not great at 28mm. mid frame and corner sharpness werent great. doesnt seem to be the case here in this review. Would be great to do a vid comparing to third party lenses like the sigma as well
Yep I have seen the same findings, I can't say I've seen the same results. I could just have a particularly strong sample, I'm not sure. But 28-35 is probably it's weakest range.
Very good review. Thank you very much. The lens is very good. The disadvantages include: reduced focal lengths at the bottom and top and the overpriced price. If it's ever cheaper, I'll buy it. For now i stay at 24-105 F4-7.1 (300g )plus a fast prime lens of 35/1,8 or 50/1,8 in my backpack and I have a full range for photography that is very easy on the hand :)
That’s a tough one. I think there is a lot of value in holding on to at least one or two of the primes. I feel 28-70 2.8 + the 50 1.8 or 85 f2 would be a great combo
Hi James, I’ve been thinking about your review and the surprising softness your RF 24-105 f/4 is showing in some of those shots. I don’t think I’ve seen my copy that soft before, and am wondering if yours might have developed some mechanical offset within the lens assembly over time. Have you had it since it came out? Do you possibly have access to another copy, preferably a more recently manufactured one? Just wondering if you do, if you could possibly take a few test shots back-to-back on an R5 body to see if yours is focusing or resolving details any differently than the other sample? Thanks.
Hey Scott! It’s certainly possible I got a poor copy of the lens. I have used 4 or 5 different copies of this lens over the years and it’s definitely one that has a lot of sample variation. I’ve tested a copy before that was great center frame though and kept up really well with the RF 24-70. Hopefully I’ll get a chance to compare the two again, unfortunately I can’t own all these lenses so I can only work with what I can hire for the time being.
Understood, I suppose it’s a different story if it’s a rental. I presume you’re in the UK? If you were somewhere here near LA, or if you rented it from someone here in the US that does mail order rentals, I’d want to track down that exact sample and rent it myself to see what the differential is between it and my lens.
BTW, I have heard of two different scenarios of sample variance - those originating from design and/or manufacturing variance reasons (commonly referred to as “decentered” samples), and others occurring as a result of tolerance shift over real-world usage patterns. One story in particular is of the classic Samyang /Rokinon 14 2.8 EF lens. That lens was so popular for Milky Way shoots out in the deserts around LA, that photogs here noticed that this particular lens would develop focus shifts over time, leading to their infinity manual focus point actually physically changing over time. It’s presumed this was due to the adhesives inside the lens assembly warming up out in the desert high ambient heat conditions… Which could lead to any number of different - random - aberration and focusing developments for each and every sample out there! So, what I’m suggesting is that it’s not necessarily known if it’s an endemic issue with the samples themselves, or as a result of shift depending on end user usage. The companies making these lenses probably have a good idea of where the issue comes from in each case, and it’s a data point we on the outside would never get insight into - unless we learn Japanese or Chinese and move there to join them. 😜 I’m just very curious to see if and how much of a shift that lens has!
I really was expecting a comparison between 24-105 f4 and 28-70 stm! I was trying to figure out which one to purchase. Thank you so much! Greetings from Greece!
I think what this shows is the 24-70 2.8 is hands down one of the best standard zooms money can buy. Almost perfect across the board - the 28-70 is also a great option, I just think I’d miss those extra 4mm at the wide end.
Excellent work as always James, you’re becoming a bit of an institution on here I think 🎉 I have the 28-70 f2 and it’s awesome but it’s a blumin beast and so unsuited to ‘walkaround’ travel. I had been using an olde worldy EF 28-105 mkII, which is surprisingly decent for the age and build quality, but that variable aperture and very poor performance at wide end has had me trying all sorts looking for decent compromise and this might finally be the Goldilocks. Especially the getting sharper at longer focal lengths characteristic, very unusual. But f4s just don’t cut it, and no point going 24-70 as it’s getting larger again, so maybe… just maybe this’ll be a winner. Quite pricey for non-L though heh?! Wonder when canon will open up RF to sigma on full frame 🤔💭 Thanks again 🙏
Thank you for this review. Would you recommend this lens to me? I earn a large part of my income through animal photography, mainly dogs, horses, and cats. I currently work with the 70-200mm f/2.8, but I’m also interested in a 24/28-70mm f/2.8. But is the STM really sufficient compared to the USM?
Hey Oliver. I haven't managed to use it for a lot of fast tracking subjects quite yet, but in all of my tests it keeps up really well with the RF 24-70 so I think it should be more than good enough for that. Also, I doubt you would need 24mm for that kind of content? Seems like a great option
Thanks for this review, excellent as usual. But what about distortion, some source tell us ths lens does not cover the sensor, and camera corrects this distortion, loosing the Resolution of sensor?
It doesn’t seem too bad to me. You can see the uncorrected RAW image just after the sharpness test. It definitely needs some stretching and correction to get rid of the mechanical vignette in the corner though which is a shame
I refresh UA-cam and Reddit everyday just to see if anyone has this lens. The reviews just aren’t there. Thank you so much!
Really hope it helps!
@@JamesReader Thanks a lot, it does. Good to see Canon finally acknowledges the need for some weather proofing on those mid tier lenses.
@evertonwood3310 I also did one! ;) got it for 2 weeks now.
It's clear how much time and thought you put into these videos. Purchasing even these mid-range Canon lenses is an enormous financial commitment for most people, so it's incredibly valuable to have reliable reviews like this. You've really become the gold standard for them.
I’ve been searching credible reviews daily and have found ANY reviews outside of one. I literally searched hours before you posted and nothing new. Then I opened UA-cam and it was right there at the top of my algorithm like a gift. I’ve watched like 4 times. Thank you!
Thank you so much!
Excellent comparison. Fantastic work. You compared this with even the primes. Simply superb
Thank you so much!
Excellent and complete lens comparison. The 24-70 f2.8 lens is the most balanced. It's hard to think of anything better. Fast and accurate focusing, sharp across the entire frame field for photos, small focus breathing for videos. The focal length range covers most of the needs. I take it on a trip or a combination of 15-35 2.8 plus 70-200 f4.
Totally agree! That’s an amazing travel combo too!
This is a wonderful review! Love how you compared it to so many different lenses and even included the part on the number of steps needed to compensate for the 28mm v 24mm ! Love your videos ❤
Thank you so much!!
Used it during my 3 week vacation. It was expensive but I'm glad I got it. It's a great lens paired with R8 for photo and video. Basically never took it off my camera.
That’s awesome! I bet it pairs so well with the R8
@@JamesReader Yep, very nice and light combo. And it has IS - so it helps R8. Even handheld videos came out pretty well.
Damn you guys! Now I got to sell my tamron g2 24-70 to get this
Finally a great review on the new RF 28-70 2.8 STM. Thanks James, I've been considering this lens and needed an honest review.
Now, I'm confused. I was considering the RF 28-70 f/2.8 until I read the review at The Digital Picture. Bryan tested it and showed that the mid-frame and periphery at wide angle and normal focal lengths were pretty soft. His Image Quality tool bears that out. When comparing the RF 28-70 f/2.8 with the RF 24-105 f/4L (which I own) and the older EF 24-70 F/2.8L II (which I used to own) on his Image Quality tool, the RF 28-70 f/2.8 looks pretty soft everywhere but the center. Your comparison doesn't show that at all! Do you think you got a much better copy?
James, Really well done, thorough and methodical review. I’ve owned three copies of the rf24-105 f4 over the years and just never grew to like it. Am so encouraged by your review and will likely pick this new 28-70 f2.8 up. Cheers
Great comparison. These Canon mid priced lenses are important for the working photographer. Performance and price is critical for my work. I am event shooter. I work in crowded environments. Recently someone knock over my tripod and crushed my 70-200mm L lens. That was a $2700 loss for me. This is so needed out in the field. For years I used Sigma lenses the were reasonably priced and lower risk in the field. I am always on edge when using my 28-70 f2 and my 86 1.2 both $3000 lenses in the field. Studio work is different. Info rarely get to work in a controlled environment.
Sorry to hear about your 70-200! That's a nightmare! I hope we see something like a lower priced, STM motor 70-180mm soon.
Wow, thank you for your review!!! I knew I could count on you for this great review. I am really surprised on the new lens performance. I didn't think it would outperform the 24-105 like this. I did trade my 24-105 for the 28-70 2.8. The vignette don't really bother me since I'm always editing my files anyways. I prefer the 2.8 over the 4.0 for video and the weight for gimbal is awesome. As always great video.
Thank you so much for watching! It’s possible I had a weak copy of the 24-105 here as in the past I have found it to perform a bit better centrally at least. I’m still confident that this new lens at least matches its performance though considering how well it performs against all the other lenses. Canon did a great job with this release!
I've been waiting so long for a good review on this! Thank you!
Thank you for watching!
I bought that lens for My R8 and IT repleased everything except 100-400 IS STM. Just love it small and lightweight and dead silent lens. Dont need anything else.
Wonderful review James. As a wedding shooter my 28-70 f/2 almost never leaves at least one of my cameras. I have the 24-105 f/4 as a travel/everyday lens. If anything I can see this review making me think about possibly selling the 24-105 f/4 for the new 28-70 f/2.8 as an everyday/travel lens.
I agree. I have the 24-105 for travel and 35mm + 85mm stm primes for portraits, but now I’m consider selling everything for this 28-70! Have you concluded what you’re going to do with your 24-105?
@@sheynewton9061 Still considering it. I'm leaning to selling the 24-105 f4 and getting this new 28-70 f2.8. My hesitation is that I'd be tradling an L lens for a non-L lens. I need more info about how durable it is.
Great job! What an extensive comparison!!!
Thank you for watching!
@@JamesReadermy pleasure
I just bought the 28-70 STM for a trip to Alaska for both video & photos. It worked really well. I own the L 24-70 USM but its big & heavy for travel when youre shooting all day.
Glad it worked well! I’m tempted to keep it for travel alone. Seems hard to beat for that
Yet again, James, a fabulous review, as they always are.
Thanks so much!
Excellent comparison, best so far on UA-cam
Thanks so much!
Excellent presentation, for us in Brazil we seek value for money, you were very clear about the quality of this lens
Thank you for watching!
This 24-105 looks decentered, picture are much softer than usual (i have one). Maybe lens was damaged somehow...
I agree. 24-105 is sharp. Maybe it's old/damaged :
ua-cam.com/video/gLLFtK01kDs/v-deo.htmlsi=3XEoPTjSHwhv4rvr
It’s possible - I compared this lens to the 24-70 before centrally at least and got better results. It was a different lens though, this was a hire.
Last night i was looked for this lens review on UA-cam but didn't find yours, then today u posted it 🥳
U are the bestt 🔥🔥
Thank you so much!
They all look great honestly. That said, no regrets getting the 28-70F2; I love the look it gives.
The 28-70 is a special lens, probably the best rendering on a zoom lens in my opinion (on RF mount anyway)
Christmas came early!!! This is exactly the type of comparison and analysis I was waiting so long for! Thank you so much!
This has definitely influenced my decision to get one! The size and weight is perfect for me. i can’t wait to see how it performs in the dessert and a follow up travel video!
Awesome! Thank you for watching. Really glad the video helped.
@ even after a few months, there just isn’t anyone doing the comparison that was done here! i’ve been dying to see a head to head with the 24-105. the other two was such a nice bonus. thank you!
I was just waiting for this review! Thanks
Thank you for watching!
I was waiting for someone to review this lens. Thank you! 😊
Thank you for watching!
28-70mm rf 2.8 is very underated lens, thank you for make this video
Totally agree! Thank you for watching
Incredible thorough review! Appreciate all the work it must have taken to do this. Your comparisons are the best! Can't wait to see if you decide to sell the RF 24-70 2.8 for this because I'm considering the same. The L weight definitely limits its use for me. Other than 4mm, what really is the drawback vs the L? Thank you.
Some of the best reviews on UA-cam.
Thank you!
Might seem crazy but would love to see how it compares to cheaper super zoom 24-240
That would be an interesting comparison!
Hi James, thank you for your extensive and very informative review of the RF 28-70 2.8 IS STM lens and how it stacks up against some of Canon's other L series lenses. I'm amazed by the clarity of this new lens compared to the RF 24-105 F4 that I was contemplating purchasing when this new lens came out. One of the things you mentioned that was a little bit of a negative for me was the loss in wide angle distance in paticular for travel photos. However, I think I might have over come this with the purchased an RF 16 mm F2.8 previously that would cover off wide angle images nicely. So I guess the long and the short is, I will purchase this new lens as the quality is excellent stacked up against the RF 24-105 F4, which costs quite a bit more. I've recently upgraded from my EF lenses 24-105 F4, EF 10-18 and 80D camera. I'd be interested in your travel photos and review of this lens when you get back. Tx. Kent
James, help! Let me know what you think. I am a hobbyist whose “work” consists of some portrait photography as well as travel documentation. I currently have the RF 35mm 1.8, 85mm 2, and 24-105mm 4 shooting on the R8. This new 28-70mm 2.8 seems like it’s everything I need (lightweight, compact, wide F2.8, and a zoom lens) . If you were me, would you replace the 28-70 for any of these lenses I already own and if so, which ones! The 35 and 85 have macro and yes I’ve used it for fun, but it’s not something I’m ALWAYS doing so I don’t think I will miss any macro capabilities should you say to get rid of either. Hoping to hear your verdict soon!
Hey! I would hang on to both of the primes. I guess the decision comes down to 28-70 vs 24-105. It’s a tough one, because your primes give you more of a low light advantage over the 28-70. I would be tempted to stick to your current setup unless you find your self using the zoom a lot more than the primes?
Don't change a thing, you have the range with the 24-105 when the light is abundant and 2 capable primes for when the lighting conditions aren't ideal.
If you should change anything, get a faster wide prime, like a 24/1.8 so you have the range along with fast aperture with those 3 primes combined. (I would advise a Sigma 20/1.4 but that would require an adapter as well and it's a big and hefty combo).
Awesome. Thanks for the most anticipated review for the budget photographers like me. I will purchase this lens and sell my 24-105mm STM (F4-7.1) lens.
Thank you so much for watching!
Got this lens as soon as it was available and sold my EF 24-70mm f2.8L II USM, shedding half the weight, when you take the EF to RF adapter into account.
I call this my "No-eL" lens. Merry Christmas! I put a green rubber band on it, with a few red twist-ties as a bit of a seasonal joke.
PS I have the RF 16mm and 85mm primes, which extend the range at both ends, and the EF 200mm F2.8L II as well (and the EF 1.4x TC).
Interesting thing is that the Sigma RF-S 18-50mm f2.8 covers a similar range on my R7, and its images look similar - but my R6 Mark II does better at higher ISOs.
I’m deciding between the RF Sigma and this one right now for my R7 , I’m not sure if I’ll move to FF but I’m not bothered about it not being 24-70 on my r7 my more interested in getting a better quality zoom than my rf -s 18-150mm , any advice ? Thanks
Sounds like I must try this lens. I have the 35mm 1.8 which I bought over the 28mm 2.8. also had the 50mm 1.8 shortly, but due to its build it got dust under it after one day never had that with any lens. So feel its the design or a bad copy. Was thinking of buying the 28mm and 50mm because they are tiny and lightweight, but this lens gave me another option and gives vr to the Canon R8 which does not have ibis. Just need to get over that price its not really cheap I would even call it L glass pricing. Good to hear the performance is there. Dont really know if I would like the distortion though. It bothers me a bit on the kit lens I have 24-105mm f/4-7.1
Thanks James for yet again one of the best reviews and comparisons available on the whole internet. I much appreciate the efforts you're seeing to give us comprehensive comparisons and your insights. It's a lot of work you're putting together but it's really worth it! One thing I would have loved to hear is your view on which is best bang for the buck - I understood the new kid in the block caught your attention if you even consider selling the 24-70mm. Keep them great videos coming! :)
I primarily use my kit for travel & landscape. Weight is always a concern. I bought the 28-70 f2.8 shortly after it came out. Getting ready to sell my 24-104 f4 so my kit will be the 14-35 f4/ 24 f1.8/ 35 f1.8/ 28-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f4. these along with my R8 make a kit that is less than 7#. Easy on the back if I carry everything along with my Angelbird Cyan tripod. Usually I carry a 6 liter bag with the 35, the 16 f2.8, the 28-70 f2.8 and the 70-200 for everyday general use. about a 5# kit. Gets me most of what I want even indoors. the 28-70 f2.8 quickly became one of my favorites.
The kind of review we'd been waiting for since the lens was released. Brilliant work!
Thanks so much!
This has been the best review of this lens so far!
Great comparison.
Thank you so much!
I don’t know why you got only 20k of subscribers. Thanks for sharing helpful videos!
I really appreciate that. Thank you!
Excellent effort in making this monster comparison. Looks really solid for 28mm-friendly travelers or everyday shooters. Excited to try at some point... not sure if the retractable design is something I could get past or not. If you have dark skies on the desert trip I'd love to see some star shots. Travel safe!
Waiting for your review also!
Thanks for watching Dan! I hope you get your hands on one soon, would love to know what you think of it. I’ll try to get some nightscape shots with it too
@@JamesReader sweet, good luck!
I was very happy to find that, on an R7 (APS-C), the new 28-70mm IS STM f/2.8 produces pinpoint stars corner to corner on astrophotos! Some chromatic aberration on bright stars, and very slight coma in the very corners, so not perfect (no such thing exists anyway), but not bad and easily corrected in post. This level of performance is throughout the zoom range. I was not expecting such excellent performance on astro, so I'm very happy indeed. (Ditto the 85mm f/2.0 prime, too, btw.)
Been waiting specifically for your review on this lens for a couple of weeks now!! Glad to see it and hyped to get this lens. Thank you for making the video!
Thank you for watching!
I think if more people buy this 28-70mm f2.8 IS STM and it is the first STM lens to have weather sealed, that would enable Canon to make more weather sealed STM lens.
I think you're right!
Superb comparison! Have been looking for this to potentially replace my current travel lens: the 24-105 STM. In terms of getting a wider shot than 28mm for those close space, you can always take multiple vertical shots and stitch them together in lightroom. I also take the 16mm pancake for those super wide landscape occasions ;-).
Wow！Another excellent comparison! I love it and thank you so much for your hard work, James!
I can’t wait for the day Canon makes a 50-135mm lens, 35-105mm, or even 50-105mm for us portrait photographers that also do travel documentation! 24-70 not enough reach and 70-200 is not wide enough. And not all photographers need that snappy nano-usm so I’m glad this new stm is quick enough! Please Canon!
Could you demonstrate the rf 28-70 2.8 against the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM with an ef-rf adapter?
Do you know if anyone has made a video on this yet? I was searching for the same thing!
@kenya4941 Havent found one yet, would also like to see both against the sigma 24-70
@@andrewb4048 there are some videos, but I can't deal with finding them now. Anyway, it's not a huge difference between them but the new RF one is just a bit more "tight" i.e. better corner sharpness, slightly better bokeh, and a better focusing motor. Which made me choose the RF, I wanted a second hand EF version but several units I have tried were decentered and performed poorly. So I went for the RF in spite of the price difference.
Central sharpness is comparable between them, but both should be better than the Sigma in the peripheral parts of the frame because it exhibits more field curvature.
I am very happy with my lens, but the EF II will be good if you are more budget constrained, just go for a new one if you decide on it, because it might be tricky finding a good second hand unit.
One thing that is pretty noticeable to me with RF vs EF lenses (of which I have 3, and only one RF lens, the 24-70) is that the RF has better stabilization as well a quieter and a faster motor, and the EF lenses I have aren't slouches either - 85/1.4L IS, 70-200/2.8 IS III and 35/2 IS. But the RF 24-70 is in its own league with how silent and fast it is, making the other lenses feel a bit dated.
One aspect where I think Canon messed up is the exterior finish and overall materials used. EF lenses age very well from my experience, and while my RF 24-70 is a few months old and still in mint condition, the RF lenses seem to pick up more scratches and get "shiny" barrels because Canon opted for a fine matte finish. Not something to worry about functionally, but I don't think most of these RF lenses will age as well as their EF counterparts. This is already visible in various YT reviews where the wear is noticeable on the lens bodies, on fairly new lenses.
James! I think, your 24-105L is broken! I have this lens and it's just great! Or at least good enough!
As a wedding and event photographer I usually shoot at indoor venues where there’s lots of terrible led lighting and the coatings on the lenses on the l series lenses really help in keeping the ghosting and flaring down and the cheaper canon glass just carnt perform that well at all under these conditions so the non l series glass just doesn’t cut it
Great review, James! You are one of the first to review this one and the comparisons make soooo much sense !!! As always, hitting on the stuff that really matters, I enjoyed it a lot but had difficulty not getting confused with all these lenses being so close in naming, except for the 24-105, but that is probably just me.
And yes, the 24-105 f/4 shows its limitations but... it is 1500€ here in Belgium, while this 28-70 f/2.8 is almost as expensive at 1319€. Here are my thoughts: yes, the new 28-70 looks really sharp. But if you have the 28-70 L f/2, would you replace it with the new 2.8, really? The f/2 is a lot larger and 3 times as expensive, so for somebody on a budget the new 28-70 is .... too expensive still. I find it cannot match the 24-105 in versatility and budget people are not going to buy a bag full of lenses. In my mind it is not good enough for pros and too expensive and specialized for budget photographers. Compare the new 28-70 for street and landscape with the 28mm f/2.8 pancake at 360 € only and you'll know what I mean. The 35 f/1.8 is 590€ , the 50 f/1.8 is 240€ and the 85 f/2 is 720€. Add those primes up: 360+590+240+720 is 1910€ worth of brighter kit with a wider reach. I already have the 28, so for me it would be 1550€. I would not hesitate a second. I'd go for the brighter primes.
In my mind it does have a place with video makers, trying to compete (and failing to?) with Sigma. So many compromises have been made to make it light weight. If this were a 600 $ lens, yes, but at 1300+€ this is by no means a bargain. The only thing this lens has going for it in my mind is the fact that Canon has no competition on RF full frame. I'm pretty sure when Chris Frost looks at this one it will not get the highly recommended score.
Thank you Philippe! I hope you are well. It was definitely a confusing one to put together at times, we have so many standard zooms now! Yes I agree I wish Canon priced this at under €1000, as usual as Canon shooters we seem to pay more than everyone else whilst making allowances for strange design choices. I'm excited to see what other reviews think of this lens.
Excellent video! I have the 24-70/2.8L and the 24-105/4L and wondered how this lens would compare. Thanks for a thorough comparison!
Great lens - great review! Thank you!🙏 I already bought this lens when it was released and yh on my R8 I‘m really happy with it👍
Really glad you’re happy with it! I bet it’s great to use on the R8
4:28 The 24-105 F4 definitely must've missed focus for the 50mm test - it's way less sharp than it was at BOTh 35mm and 70mm!
@@Scyth3934 hmm possibly. I took a lot of shots at 50mm so I’ll include those too.
I think that you should get the 24-105 to a service centre, it should perform better than that
First: What? you are english and i just notice this at the end?!
Second: You prefer the new lens than the 24-70 2.8?
Great video by the way.
I don´t decide yet which i buy...
Also, this is a really great review and comparison! I've been using the Tamron G2 24-70 adapted for the last year or so. It's a great lens, but man is it heavy! The biggest appeal of this new 28-70 is its weight. Seriously considering trading up to this lens!
They should have put a switch there to block from going too closed.. because when looking through viewfinder one might go too far.
Hmmm, now I am thinking about returning my 24-105mm F/4L that I just bought a few days ago... I can buy this 28-70mm F/2.8 for the same price.. What should I do...
Going to mainly use it for city trips, car/motorcycle shootings, forest
(I also have the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM and the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM)
Such a fantastic comparison thank you as always 😊 this new one is certainly on my shopping list for next year. Currently using the Sigma EF 24-70 but my aim next year is to ditch using the adapter and go fully native RF so having this one at a decent price point definitely will help as there’s no way I can afford the others lol. Nice to see this one holds up in most areas compared to the much more expensive options.
Great review and comparison.
Would have been interested to see a comparison between 70mm and the 85mm f2 prime.
Hi James, is there so much difference in performance between RF and EF lenses? I bought an R6 and I was thinking to buy also an RF. I normally use the EF 24-70 in my work. Does it make sense to buy the 24-70 or 28-70RF? Thanks in advance for your help.
This is an amazing in depth comparison and exactly what I've been looking for on this lens (I actually wish all lens reviews were this thorough). Can't wait to hear how your experience goes when traveling at the end of the month. I'm also trying to decide to go with that or keep my 24-70 f2.8, mainly because I do an equal mix of video work and the lighter weight is more ideal for balancing on my gimbal.
Thank you so much for the kind words! I really appreciate it.
Thank you! I have been waiting and waiting for a detailed and intelligent review. You really covered everything! I have an RF 24-105 f/4 and an EF 24-70 f/2.8 ii. The RF 28-70 f/2.8 looks like a really good value option with much better image quality and AF performance than I expected. Maybe it would be a nice option as a smaller, lighter all-arounder for my R5 and R8.
Thank you Allen! I think this lens would be a dream paired with the R8 in particular. It’s possible I had a weak copy of the 24-105 though, so bear in mind the sharpness results are probably most similar centrally at least
The fact that it's consistently outperforming a lens that's 3x the cost! definitely my next lens.
Great video! I have a 28-70 2.0, and love it, but when the new 2.8 got announced, I was curious if i should sell the 2.0 for this, mainly due to how much lighter and smaller it is. The debate continues haha, but this video helped!
Such a hard choice! The 28-70 is so big and heavy but incredible that I could see a use case for keeping both 😂
Very useful video, thank you! I'm very surprised at the poor performance of the 24-105 here. Especially compared to your review videos of the 24-105, where it seemed to hold up much better against the much more expensive L lenses, being just as sharp or close to it as the more expensive lenses. In this video it's just a blurry mess.
Thank you for detailed review of this interesting lens!
I thought you missed focus on the 24-105, but damn is it really that soft at the long end? I know it's one of the older RF lenses, but the sharpness drops off so much.
Hello James. Thanks for the video. Can you tell me how it performs on an aps-c sensor? I know about the apparent focal range that will be different, but it's not a big deal for the purpose I plan for it. I'm looking for a zoom with a good max aperture to use in low light conditions (indoor and outdoor). I find the new sigma 17-50 little short and according to some reviews, the RF 24-105 F4L is not a good choice for aps-c not performing well on that sensor size. My budget limit is the price of this one. (For R7 and R10). I have the sigma 17-70 f2,8-4C for reflex, but since I recently bought the R7, I tend to find it not as good as on the 80D and R10 but I need to test it more. Just wondering wich lens could be an alternative.
Thank you so much for this review! Many of us have been waiting for it. I’m impressed with the sharpness and overall quality of this lens. Now, for me, there’s only one last thing to find out.
This lens (brand new) and the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II USM (used) are available at the same price. Which one of these two would you choose?
Thank you for watching! For size and weight I would go for the new lens, otherwise I’m sure the EF lens is just as good optically with a bit of an extended focal range at the wide end. But that is a hard choice, I personally would rather not have to use an adapter
Thank you for this review James. I was waiting for it :). I am not very pleased with digital lens corrections, but that's the route Canon seems to take.
Thank you for watching! Unfortunately the reliance on lens corrections seems to be here to stay
Super interesting finding regarding the sharpness. I use a 15-35 a lot and when I use my 24-70 I mostly use it at 40 to 70mm. Makes me tempted to sell my 24-70 and buy the 28-70, then spend the spare money on a trip or 2 five guys meals
That’s the same move I am debating! I just wonder if I will miss 24mm for video. If I only shot photo I think I would definitely swap.
What’s disappointing to me is the price is still quite high for what it is. The extra gutpunch is Tamron was making similar lenses for Sony 5 years ago for a few hundred less brand new.
Yeah I agree hopefully we see a price drop over the next few months.
Just purchased this lens on the strength of this review and I have to say, I’m a bit disappointed. At 28mm and 70mm the centre is sharp, even at f2.8 but the mid frame to corners are not great, even stopped down. Maybe I have a bad copy? I’m also using it on the R5, which will test the lens. Think I may return it and save up for the RF24-70mm f2.8 L
Apologies, also wanted to thank you for the review. You must have put hours into making this!
Your comments and especially the comparisons are very complete, better than any other video I usually watch. Perhaps, it would be useful additional information if you mention your opinion on contrast and tint differences, although it is quite clear in the comparisons you show. Thank you very much James for your thorough work. I will share it in the Canonistas argentinos group I manage.
Thank you so much for watching! I’ll definitely do that next time. I really appreciate you sharing the video too.
For portraits would you think it wise to replace the RF 50 1.8 and 35 1.8 with this lens? And how do you think it compares with the rf85 f2? though focal length difference is apparent
Seems like this 28-70 f2.8 holds up pretty dang well against the L lens. I do see a lot of people going for this over the L versions because at this point people are literally paying for that red strip.
Very true! Thank you for watching
Another epic review James, I was interested to understand how it performs against the 24-70 f2.8 - seems a pretty capable lens for the price. The 35mm 1.8 and the 5.0mm 1.8 together in AUD is around $1200 and the 28-70 f2.8 is $1800, very sharp and fast and weather sealed. Interesting.
Thank you for watching Tony! Definitely an interesting lens
Are you sure your 24-105 F4 doesn't have any issue ? I have this lens and it doesn't look so soft even in the corners. Also the quality of a lens is not only corner sharpness, it also comes down to color rendition, micro contrast, 3D feel, flare resistance, bokeh rendering, etc. In these aspects, I would be curious to see how the new 28-70 performs against the 24-70 / 24-105.
It’s possible I was given a poor copy. I’ve used many copies of this lens and it definitely has some sample variation but I’ve always been really happy with the 24-105
I see, did it come as a kit with the camera ? I’ve heard that zooms coming with bodies are sometimes of a little less good quality than when bought stand alone… I could never verify though. But mine is really good so I was surprised with your results. Anyway thanks a lot for your review about the 28-70.
Exactly the review I was looking for. Thanks you!
Thank you for making this video! It seems like the 28-70 2.8 is very sharp compared to the 24-70 f2.8. If only the lens came out sooner as I already bought the 24-70. Looking forward to the review if you're going to keep the 28-70 over the 24-70!
Thank you for watching!
Thanks for the test! Would love to see the review before purchasing this non-L-everyone-else lens
Thanks James. You do the best lens comparisons.
I wanted to buy the 24-105 (f4), but I liked the 28-70 (f2.8). Lightweight, compact size. The photo quality is very good.
but I like the 24-105 for its focal lengths.
wide angle 24 and more zoom to 105mm.
I will compare all the strengths and weaknesses of both lenses to find a compromise for myself.
Thank you very much for the review.
P.S. Special thanks for the links to your photos.
Thank you so much for watching! That’s a really hard choice, both are great lenses. I personally love the 24-105 range but the new lens is really great too.
I've got a Nikon 24-70 f/4 that has the same retracting function. Took me by surprise the first time too. I would add that on my Canon I use the 24-105 - I can't live without that extra length on the long end. While I do shoot quite a bit of landscape, I would point out that one just doesn't shoot landscape wide open. I think this new lens may not be for me - but it is brilliant.
Ah that's interesting! I had no idea the Nikon lens shared the same design. I'm sure it must have some kind of advantage of it.
@@JamesReader I think it's exactly what you said in the video - it packs up a lot smaller. The Nikon, like the Canon, loses around 25mm when retracted, and that can be a big deal for a travel photographer, or a person who is new to SLRs and wants to limit the size of their lens kit. I think it helps make the whole SLR/Mirrorless thing less intimidating.
Awesomeness comparison! Totally enjoyed the review!
Thank you!
Thanks for this review and especially for the raw files. I have been underwhelmed by the two RF 24-105/4L lenses I've owned. Your files showed the 28-70 to be dramatically better than the 24-105. In fact the detail in the 24-105 was so smeared I wonder if there is a problem with that lens. Nevertheless, the 28-70 could be a replacement - the reduction in range is compensated by the brighter aperture and smaller size and weight.
What made you feel underwhelmed with those two 24-105 F4 L's?
My first one was sharper than the EF lens it replaced, but became decentered. The replacement was softer than the first, so I repaired the first. Its okay for event photography, but on my R5, but struggles when I print landscapes at A2 size (16x20 inch).
Great to see these results. a lot of stuff posted online seemed to show that the lens was not great at 28mm. mid frame and corner sharpness werent great. doesnt seem to be the case here in this review. Would be great to do a vid comparing to third party lenses like the sigma as well
Yep I have seen the same findings, I can't say I've seen the same results. I could just have a particularly strong sample, I'm not sure. But 28-35 is probably it's weakest range.
Very good review. Thank you very much. The lens is very good. The disadvantages include: reduced focal lengths at the bottom and top and the overpriced price. If it's ever cheaper, I'll buy it. For now i stay at 24-105 F4-7.1 (300g )plus a fast prime lens of 35/1,8 or 50/1,8 in my backpack and I have a full range for photography that is very easy on the hand :)
Thank you! You have a great setup there. That kit lens is really good. I hope we see a price decrease on this new lens too.
@@JamesReader 👍
Is your RF 24-105 f4 decentered? The corner sharpness seems unacceptable.
Great review! Should I sell my RF35mm F1.8, 50mm F1.8, and 85mm F2 prime lens to get this new lens?
That’s a tough one. I think there is a lot of value in holding on to at least one or two of the primes. I feel 28-70 2.8 + the 50 1.8 or 85 f2 would be a great combo
@@JamesReader Thank you for your advice!
Hi James, I’ve been thinking about your review and the surprising softness your RF 24-105 f/4 is showing in some of those shots. I don’t think I’ve seen my copy that soft before, and am wondering if yours might have developed some mechanical offset within the lens assembly over time. Have you had it since it came out? Do you possibly have access to another copy, preferably a more recently manufactured one? Just wondering if you do, if you could possibly take a few test shots back-to-back on an R5 body to see if yours is focusing or resolving details any differently than the other sample? Thanks.
Hey Scott! It’s certainly possible I got a poor copy of the lens. I have used 4 or 5 different copies of this lens over the years and it’s definitely one that has a lot of sample variation. I’ve tested a copy before that was great center frame though and kept up really well with the RF 24-70. Hopefully I’ll get a chance to compare the two again, unfortunately I can’t own all these lenses so I can only work with what I can hire for the time being.
Understood, I suppose it’s a different story if it’s a rental. I presume you’re in the UK? If you were somewhere here near LA, or if you rented it from someone here in the US that does mail order rentals, I’d want to track down that exact sample and rent it myself to see what the differential is between it and my lens.
BTW, I have heard of two different scenarios of sample variance - those originating from design and/or manufacturing variance reasons (commonly referred to as “decentered” samples), and others occurring as a result of tolerance shift over real-world usage patterns. One story in particular is of the classic Samyang /Rokinon 14 2.8 EF lens. That lens was so popular for Milky Way shoots out in the deserts around LA, that photogs here noticed that this particular lens would develop focus shifts over time, leading to their infinity manual focus point actually physically changing over time. It’s presumed this was due to the adhesives inside the lens assembly warming up out in the desert high ambient heat conditions… Which could lead to any number of different - random - aberration and focusing developments for each and every sample out there! So, what I’m suggesting is that it’s not necessarily known if it’s an endemic issue with the samples themselves, or as a result of shift depending on end user usage. The companies making these lenses probably have a good idea of where the issue comes from in each case, and it’s a data point we on the outside would never get insight into - unless we learn Japanese or Chinese and move there to join them. 😜 I’m just very curious to see if and how much of a shift that lens has!
I really was expecting a comparison between 24-105 f4 and 28-70 stm! I was trying to figure out which one to purchase. Thank you so much! Greetings from Greece!
Thank you!
I think what this shows is the 24-70 2.8 is hands down one of the best standard zooms money can buy. Almost perfect across the board - the 28-70 is also a great option, I just think I’d miss those extra 4mm at the wide end.
Totally agree!
Nice review James! I’m curious about the bokeh, does it look distracting compared to the 24-105?
Thank you Youssef! The bokeh is great in my opinion. Nothing overly distracting.
@@JamesReader Alright ! Thanks man!
Excellent work as always James, you’re becoming a bit of an institution on here I think 🎉
I have the 28-70 f2 and it’s awesome but it’s a blumin beast and so unsuited to ‘walkaround’ travel.
I had been using an olde worldy EF 28-105 mkII, which is surprisingly decent for the age and build quality, but that variable aperture and very poor performance at wide end has had me trying all sorts looking for decent compromise and this might finally be the Goldilocks.
Especially the getting sharper at longer focal lengths characteristic, very unusual.
But f4s just don’t cut it, and no point going 24-70 as it’s getting larger again, so maybe… just maybe this’ll be a winner.
Quite pricey for non-L though heh?!
Wonder when canon will open up RF to sigma on full frame 🤔💭
Thanks again 🙏
Thank you so much Henry!
Good! Wondering how the new lens compares to new 24-105 2.8 L lens?
The 24-105 is incredibly sharp, without testing side by side my guess would be that the 24-105 is a bit better optically. But it's huge and expensive.
Have you tested the RF 50MM 1.4 yet?
Nice work. I'm curious about video performance for the new lens.
Thank you! I’ll definitely cover that in the dedicated review
Thank you for this review. Would you recommend this lens to me? I earn a large part of my income through animal photography, mainly dogs, horses, and cats. I currently work with the 70-200mm f/2.8, but I’m also interested in a 24/28-70mm f/2.8. But is the STM really sufficient compared to the USM?
Hey Oliver. I haven't managed to use it for a lot of fast tracking subjects quite yet, but in all of my tests it keeps up really well with the RF 24-70 so I think it should be more than good enough for that. Also, I doubt you would need 24mm for that kind of content? Seems like a great option
Thanks for this review, excellent as usual. But what about distortion, some source tell us ths lens does not cover the sensor, and camera corrects this distortion, loosing the Resolution of sensor?
It doesn’t seem too bad to me. You can see the uncorrected RAW image just after the sharpness test. It definitely needs some stretching and correction to get rid of the mechanical vignette in the corner though which is a shame