A friend of mine showed me some of their shots they took with this lens. The image quality is jaw dropping. Everything about it blew me away. Honestly, it's worth the money if you want the very best along with the versatility of the 28-70 focal length.
fnx , learn how to shoot. Most subjects move and IS doesnt help. For sports, IS is generally turned off. I have the fabled 24-70mm L ii, and don't need IS.
I am 14 years old from Australia and worked 3 whole years at Mcdonalds to buy this lens, saved every cent. No regrets. Now I need money for the Canon EOS R camera...
With IS this lens would have been more expensive, bigger and heavier...Please stop complaining, this is a great new lens design, and it's pretty rare in the camera world.As a professional,I like the fact Canon use the mirrorless design to unleash quality lens designs, and not just reduce the size.
Jean-Baptiste Casasola thank you! I look at all the film cameras from the past and see that they never had any form of stabilization. I started to realize that the weight of the camera plus the photographer, is the stabilizer. I’ve been shooting dslr for years and never realized that none of my cameras ever had stabilization.
@@SoPoetIQ37 The reason film cameras got away without stabilization is that they're so damn heavy. A mirrorless, even with a lens like this, is going to be too shaky when handheld. It was absolutely the right decision to not get OIS for this lens, but it was absolutely the wrong decision to not put IS into the EOS R camera bodies.
@oliver roozen that’s true. I believe my statement mentions that, but I’ve shot Dslr for years and never had a stabilizer built into the body, i now shoot with the eos R with a grip and I phenomenal shots. I think the world is so UA-cam fed and tech hungry that if something doesn’t have a “feature” then it’s the biggest disappointment. Photography is an art form that requires an artist. I never heard of a paint brush trying to paint for the painter.
@oliver roozen I also shot a wedding with the eos r and the RF 28-70mm f2 lens and it made the camera heavy, however, the build of the eos r was able to handle it so although it was heavy it was perfectly balanced so I never got an ounce of shaking at all! So heaviness doesn’t mean a lack of stability on canon cameras at least.
I am curious to see how this performs on the R5 or R6. Now that the new Canon Bodies are out. I am just about to purchase a R6. But am conflicted between getting this 28-70 or getting a F4 zoom and few(3) F1.8 Primes.
This lens will be awesome for the next iteration of Canon R with IBIS! IBIS results in sharper brighter images without the bulk and weight~ Srs tho, I can't believe how sharp these 28-70 f2 and 24-105mm f4 are. Canon stepping up in the lens game again.
I think this lens will be the 'go-to' lens for many Canon shooters. Shame about the price tag and the lack of IS, but I'd certainly have it in my arsenal.
Edoardo Fioretto - Would have been nice to see a side by side of the 28-70mm on the R and the 24-70mm on a 5D to see if the body size offsets the lens size by enough to wash that argument. I would think it would at least by enough to be worth the added stop and sharpness. But then you have the argument of how the 5D is still a better overall camera for events due to the dual cards slots, not to mention the R is crippled for burst shooting, not to mention the control schemes (5D has a thumbstick, R has a control ring).
And what about the 24-70 on the EOS-R? Smaller, lighter and equally sharp, at the cost of one f-stop. I can only see this 28-70 f/2 in very specific situations and not as a 'go-to' lens.
Dear Tony, I have been shooting Basketball 1.Liga for many years. It makes little sense to work with Aperture 2.0. Then I could take a fixed focal length with aperture 1.4. A sports photographer will prefer to increase the ISO. With that, all full-size cameras are clear today. Prefer two fixed focal lengths in the luggage as such a heavy part, with little scope of the focal length.
i am still waiting for your detailed review of the 28-70mm f/2 lens with Canon R5. more details are required from you. The sweet spot of this lens needs to be identified in terms of f spot.
So this lens has no wide end (28mm is not really wide, it's standard street focal lenght) it's super heavy (1400g vs 800g (2.8 version)) and not stabilised. Sure some people will find it usefull but I would rather have 3 faster primes and keep the weight of my hands
@@borg_uk doesn't make sense comparing two lenses with different apertures. It doesn't matter if it is f4 or f9. Of course around f9 it will give you the maximum sharpness, but what you want is a relative comparison not absolute.
I have it. I’m a nightclub shooter who is a new owner of the r6 and it’s ideal for any low light shooter imo. The results you get with this is pretty much what you’d get from primes except you need one body and one lens. Why pay 3k for this? Well why not? The lenses will generally outlive the camera so over the lifespan of a camera I would’ve paid for this lens 3 times over by the time the shutter gives out. It’s weather sealed so I’m not worried about people spilling drinks and splashing my equipment. It only makes sense if you’re a working photographer and that’s what this type of gear is made for. I’m getting tack sharpness at f/2 and super sharp at f2.5 with 2 people in the frame who’s faces are close together out on the same plane. And at f2.8 I can get 3 with the right labe plane positioning. It’s a stretch but it can be done. To be on the safe side you can do f3.2 or 3.5. I also received a few laughs and surprised looks from people who noticed the size. And right now I’m the only guy on the scene with this large lens so it’s becoming my trademark look. But after a few weeks of using it I have no regrets about spending the money on it. This is the Thor’s hammer of photography and run and gun workflow. Because of the diameter size and aperture range I can let more light into the lens at lower ISOs as well. What I’d normally use with my 24-70 adapted lens at ISO 640 and 1200 I can do with ISO 250-640 and expose the ambient lighting of the venue in the background with varying brightness being from little to none. And with the speedlight settings set lower I’m also able to shoot more low light events on one set of AA lithium batteries. I was halfway on my fourth event before I had to change them out. It’s been a dream so far. I’ve gotten used to the weight as well so it isn’t that heavy anymore. It was a as Kyle daunting at first but I adjusted
Tony sports photographers like myself will not care if it is stabilized. We shoot at 1/1000 sec where image stabilization is meaningless and may actually slow focus acquisition. My Canon 24-70 f2.8 is currently my go to lens for shooting basketball under the net. .
This lens is insane!!!! It can potentially replace all prime and zoom lenses at this focal length. F2 is definitely wide enough for even indoor sports. I’m used to shooting indoor sports with a prime but that limits my composition. I’ve always lusted the zoom’s functionality, but is still shooting prime because of the f-stop difference. This is gonna be a game changer! Even though I’m no longer a canon shooter, this will probably get other manufactures making similar lenses.
This is what I actually thought when I saw Sigma 18-35 F/1.8. Do I still think it can replace 24-70? No. Well it lacks telephoto end but the F/1.8. At this point you start to think about weight, cost, and other aspects. No it won't replace all primes and zoom lenses because they all have their pros and cons.
Lucid_OnLooker lmao when the alphas first came out, we were complaining that they have good cameras but terrible lenses. At least canon is putting out great glass before great body, which is the right move. I don’t expect canon or Nikon or Panasonic to get it right on their very first camera, but it’s good to see them going on the right direction
Years ago when I got into Canon the online forums complained and complained about the Canon 28-70 f/2.8 not being wide enough so Canon developed the 24-70 f/2.8 which is an awesome lens. Fast forward to 2018 and Canon reintroduces the 28-70 and not a 24-70? If 28mm's wasn't wide enough, remember? You mentioned in some of your Canon EF lens reviews that 24 was a better focal length since it was a bit wider. Seems like one step forward and two steps back to me.
I really like 24mm on a lens, I wouldnt get a 28, but thats just because of my needs and preferences. I also like the sharpness of sigmas arts over cannon anyway, hahah
Canon behave just like 10 year ago in all there shine and glory. Canon have to realise their golden era, when they define prices, has gone. Tamron and Sigma 24-70 2.8 stabilised aren't seriously lacking. Adding Sigma Art 1.4 for bokeh - overcome everything Canon f/2.0 can give. This blindness just heart industry - I dont want Canon disappear because they produce lota of interesting and rare glasses
Happy to hear about the new 24-107. I ordered the kit even though I already had the original 24-104L for the smaller size and the ring. I’m happy to hear your experience with it! Thanks for your thorough unbiased reviews Tony! :)
Another quality video. Thanks for explaining the benefit of f2.0. I did not realize that there would be such a big difference in the amount of light going from f2.8 to f2.0. I shoot a lot of basketball at high speeds and low aperture. I have the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 but don't use it much for basketball. I pretty much only use the 70-200mm f2.8. Sometimes a 300mm f2.8. Once Canon comes out with a high frame rate mirrorless, I will get that instead of a 1Dx Mark II. Hopefully the second generation of this lens will add image stabilization and we will be good to go.
Got this lens. No regrets. Paired it with the RP and called it a day. In effect, I have ‘primes’ in my camera between 28-70mm. The weight of the lens alone provides an on-board stabilization (sort of).
I get the convenience of the zoom lens but that is a tough price tag to swallow combined with the high weight & size. Yo can get 3 excellent prime lenses at f1.4-1.8 covering those focal lengths. I think at $2000 it would make a killer must have lens but at 50% higher it is a tough call. I think for weddings/events it would be a fantastic fit.
7:20 - 4 times the area of a full frame sensor is still less than 6x6 medium format. The smallest common large format starts at 4x5, or a bit less than 16 times the area of a full frame sensor. You'd need a 4 stop advantage at full frame to equal the equivalency you've stated.
Big THANK to you Tony for your one more excellent review! Much appreciated! Wishing you and your whole family all the very Best always! /Greetings from Sweden!
i think this lens, paired with a 85 or a 135 mm would be a staple lens system for most of the fashion and wedding photographers out there. A beautiful lens with a not so beautiful price tag.
3 plus pounds, no IS. Great for (strong) wedding photographers in dark halls, but I'd rather shoot primes (which are lighter and far easier to hold, faster, generally sharper and typically have IS) and change lenses when I need to. Sounds like a brilliant technical achievement, but without IS or IBIS and so so heavy to hold (and then there's the price), something of an aardvark.
Hello, This lens (Canon RF 28-70mm f/2L USM) is sure heavy and hefty. But the quality is amazing. Shooting at f/2 (not even f/2.8) for up to 70mm opens a great variety of possibilities with one lens! On a practical side, is there a cheaper option for Canon RF lens, which would be may be a bit softer at a higher stop (zoom) but still a good enough option for closeups and landscapes alike? Thank you for your reviews!
As a photographer i dont understand the big fuss about in body stabilization. Esp on any lens that is below 100mm. The only time ive never notices camera shake is in low light and on a telephoto to begin with. So not having Is on this lens which is the standard length i use on a daily basis isn't a problem. to me it seems like people are getting lazier and not putting in the work to handle the equipment to get a good photo. come one people shoulder presses and holds work those muscles.
I think people are generally overreacting to the lack of IS in a lens like this. It's an F/2, and the focal length is maxed at 70mm. I don't think it will come into play that much considering it's likely use. I'm not saying IS isn't valuable. I just thinking people are putting WAY too much emphasis on it.
At first when I seen the specs on this lens, I was all in. But then seeing how big it is, and especially the weight, I definitely don't want to use this as an all purpose travel lens! It's huge, and weight as much as a 70-200 f2.8! I used to be all for functionality, no matter the cost (size, weight, etc), but after travelling a lot, size and weight really do matter. Isn't that the point of having a zoom, one lens to do it all? It kind of defeats the purpose when that lens weighs as much as two. Oh well, great lens otherwise Canon.
This is a beautiful lens, the extra stop is very useful, I still have my Canon 28-70 f2.8 L I bought in 2000 before Canon brought out the two 24-70's F2.8, I used it all the time for weddings with 400 ISO Fuji film, if the person conducting the wedding let me take photos during the ceremony I'd be in AV mode with fill flash, that would still only give me f f2.8 at a 30th, so this new lens with extra stop would of been very useful at the time and yes I survived without image stabilization.
When they bring out a pro body then this system will be the cats nuts with the control ring lenses. For now I'm waiting in the wings to see what develops before I spend.
Well...Sigma has in production a SUPERB 24-35/2 lens some two years ago...which can be mounted in any "mirror" or "mirrorless" camera. It is also smaller and with less filter width. Now that Canon has jumped in the f/2 boat i would like to see Sigma produce a pair of 24-50/2 and 50-135/2 for the ones that can appreciate such a combo.
Isn't F/2 is too shallow for shooting moving people/sports? I would think that one would stop down to F/2.8 at least, which kind of defeats the purpose of having F/2 in the first place?
Keep hearing how these fast apertures can save the day in low light situations irony is I also keep hearing about the excellent high ISO performance of virtually all new cameras, this could be a factor for 20x16 or larger prints but how many people print to that size, (those who do are mostly pros using medium format).
The thing is, IS can make a difference of up to 5 stops, so a good stabilized f2.8 lens can do better in low light than this f2 lens does. I think this lens is a toy for people with a lot of money who want ot show off and don't have to care about actual performance and practicality. It's huge and heavy, which means it is bad for long hikes or mountain tours, takes a lot of space in your camera bag and draws a lot of attention which is not always ideal when you want to photograph people as a reporter or wedding photographer.
IS doesn't help for moving subjects though. For wedding, I don't think it matters. Often we carry 2 bodies anyways and often one with a big white 70-200mm f2.8. People will notice you regardless. When I was working in newspaper, we use 1D and 5D series bodies. They are big cameras. It is more about giving respect to the subject than trying to be "sneaky" Sure, if you want to go on a hike or holiday, then it may not be good for you, but then this is why we have got the 24-105 IS.
DeletedDelusion , learn how to shoot mate. IS doesn't help in the reak world of moving subjects. IS is typically turned off or reduced for sports. I have the fabled 24-70mm f2.8 Lii non IS, & I dont miss having IS ever.
Wtf u buy this lens to get more shallow depth of field and that’s about it. If u can’t shoot without ibis or IS what do you think photographers were doing 3 years ago. Get a grip fucking gear psychos
For $3000 I want this to go to 24mm... and be made of platinum. With lens elements made from diamonds. You can buy a Sony A7iii + Tamron 28-75 f2.8 for $2800, and it will have IBIS, and all the other features that the EOS-R is missing. So... who the hell is going to be buying this?
If someone buys a $3000 lens that only works on a new camera that's inferior to the competition and only has a few other native lenses available for it, that all also cost way too much, just because they like the company that makes it, then... they're fucking morons and deserve to get ripped off.
Thank you Tony for this review! I wish this was the first review that I watched today, because it would have saved me 8 hours of my life. The video was very informative and helped me make my final decision. Thank you! Please keep up the hard work!!!
At 6:50 - 7:24: f/4 -> f/2 = 2 stops, same as MFT -> FF, same as FF -> "large format sensor"....wait what? Where can you get a large format sensor? Large format refers to film size 4 x 5 (inches) or 127 x 102 mm, or higher, compared to FF (36 x 24) or 0.28 crop factor. Current medium format sensors are 44 x 36 (used by Fuji, Pentax, among others) and 54 x 40 (used by Phase One among others). Micro 4/3 sensor is about 22 x 13 mm. APS-C (non-Canon) is 28 x 16 mm. So, micro 4/3 to FF is slightly larger change than FF to the larger MF sensor. Way smaller than "large format".
Interesting statement about the 24-105/F4.0 since, that has a nice zoom range, and, to be honest, you don't want F2.8 or F2.0 all the time (since you have to focus dead on otherwise you miss the focus). I don't see the extra value over my EF 24-70 lens... in real life, I doubt you notice it.
Since he really had a limited hands-on, I doubt Tony really did a light transmission test. Sure, it's a F/2 lens, you'll get f2 bokeh. But f2 light gathering? As in you will get a full stop of extra light compared to a f/2.8 lens? Doubtfull, especially since that monster is full of glass elements. With that said, this is the piece of tech I am most interested in the EOS R system. I can understand the enthusiasm. The first generation of cameras is underwhelming though.
Can you please compare the 24-105 mk II EF to the RF? 'm really curious of how they compare. And please, give us also some shots with the new 50mm f/1.2
Heard a lot about how BIG this lens is, but didn't really take it in until now when I realised, 95mm filter size.. that's the same as my sigma 150-600c.
Good video Tony, thanks. Have you also tested the new 35 mm from Canon? I am planning to buy the EOS r together with the 35 mm. so I'm curious about the results.
didn't Tony contradict himself about two weeks ago about the 50MM f/0.95 lens for E mount? Also, I believe Sony said at Photokina there isn't anything to this throat diameter stuff with regards to their mount - (the 16-35MM f/2.8 E lens is the sharpest in the industry isn't it?)
looking at the price, might it be cheaper to carry 2 bodies with a wide prime on one and a telephoto prime on the other for most work that might require an f2 from wide to tele?
I've been wanting to upgrade from apsc to mirrorless FF - I'm used to the sigma 18-35 & 50-100 f/1.8 zooms so I dont really want to go for primes if I upgrade. This lens is that sweet that I might even hold of another year to see if the competition can make something comparable to this or until canon makes an improved version of the eos r with sensor stabilisation.
In the cutaway view of the lens that shows the internal lens elements, it sure seems like they could have reduced the outer bulk of the lens quite a bit.
"2 stops is like going from FF to LF" - Hmmm, I agree with a lot of what you said there but that one was a stretch, even in theory. What LF digitals do we have? More like going to a proper MF sensor (6x6)... again, if we had one... which we don't, but that would have been a better comparison. LF would be around 4-6 stops better than FF.
Hi Tony I'm new to your channel and I just got my first camera I need your help. My sister's graduation is coming and i need some advice I have the canon eos 80d whith lense 18-55mm and 75-300mm lense what do you sujest me to do I hope you can help me tank you.
You missed to comment the chromatic aberration, which are stronger on the 28-80/2. And Bokeh, colors, contrast+resolution. Sharpness is not everything.
Hi Tony, sorry I take to long to flow you guys, but I try to get the most information possible before I start spend money in a camera, it’s going to be my first oficial camera, I always used somebody else or when I was filming take some shot for my ex boss, I’m watching every scenario possible to make the right choice, I see the lenses are spectaculars and I know for fact the lenses always you can use in the future, the cameras is other history at the end get old and you replace with something new, but the glass still perfect, I said that because I’m a cinematographer and we replace cameras over the years, I start with film, so, the lenses still amazing. Anyway my first question is what is your choice or your best selection form the then3 ring, aperture, iso, shutter speed. And my last 2 short questions, do you recommend an M6 as a second portable camera to have. Reading about the new canon R, if come enough Pro after listening to the cons of the first mirrorless, so can have body stabilization and compensate the lenses this lenses,
Been saying this since the eos r reveal. The 28-70 f2 is the best part of the eos r to be honest. Why aren't other people (cough Nikon) making new, amazing lenses? Oh well.
I had a chance to play with it for several hours at a local launch event. Stunning image quality but the lens alone weighs nearly 1.5kg. I don't find it practical on a long day of shooting where endurance is key.
Wow, this is the type of lens you switch platforms for. It almost makes primes lenses in that range redundant. It took Sony 3 years after the launch of the a7 to come out with standard f2.8 zoom. I thought it would take Canon and Nikon about the same amount of time but then BOOM. Canon releases this f2 monster.
I'm going to guess that IBIS will be in the pro-body, hence the lack of IS in this lens. And I'd also be willing to bet that Canon will create a companion f/2 lens similar to the 70-200, but maybe slightly shorter focal length to ensure the size remains sensible. A 70~135mm f/2 would be fantastic for portraits (maybe a little longer).
Hey Tony, love your reviews. Just wanted to mention Sigma's 24-35 f/2. It's not a 28-70 but it is an incredible f/2 zoom so Canon is not the only one with super fast professional zooms. Based on the cost alone I WILL NOT buy an unstabilized lens to use on a body without IBIS. Why was IBIS left out? The answer is simple, if you want IS you buy a Canon lens and make more money for Canon!
Great Review ! (As always ) Any update on the full review of the Z7 ? As nikon user i couldn't ignore that all the image samples out of the EOS R with the new RF lenses looks a league above the Z7 images with the Z lenes. I guess it is the glass but the really is sad for Nikon...
It reminds me of the 85 1.2 where there’s a lot of heavy glass for the af motor to move, in the end i have to sell it coz it is painstakingly slow to focus.
Speaking as a high school sports photographer, that lens would be a joy. I'd love another stop of light. But the body, no. The continuous shooting modes are simply too slow. 5 FPS just don't cut it.
Hi Tony, I have Sigma Art 18-35 f/1.8 lens which is a crop sensor lens. I think I can use it in Canon EOS R body with adapter, what would the equivalent focal range and aperture in FF body?
Idk why canon doesn’t just scale their 24 mp aps-c sensor to a ~60 mp ff sensor and put it in a mirrorless body. It would be awesome to combine ultra high res with ultra sharp lenses
A friend of mine showed me some of their shots they took with this lens. The image quality is jaw dropping. Everything about it blew me away. Honestly, it's worth the money if you want the very best along with the versatility of the 28-70 focal length.
Thanks for sharing. I'm trying to get a used one now. ^_^
@@BrianHallmonddid you manage to get one?
@@BruceLeroyUK yeah got one secondhand last year. Great lens.
I’d be interested to see the T-stop value of both lenses before spending 3k.
"It's disturbingly big" - That's what she said.. ?
95mm diameter is definitly disturbingly big...
Chris Keppler Big girtha.
Sounds like an adult film.
Sounds like something Kai would say.
Adult film...that would be large format, BTW.
You can say a lot of bad things about Canon...but bad lens quality is not one of them.
Too bad the total lack of stabilization means It'll be outperformed by lenses 1/10 the price in some situations.
Felipe Figueroa But bad sensor quality certainly is.
yeah especially for people who don't know what they're doing
I.S? bring a tripod like a pro.
fnx , learn how to shoot. Most subjects move and IS doesnt help. For sports, IS is generally turned off. I have the fabled 24-70mm L ii, and don't need IS.
I am 14 years old from Australia and worked 3 whole years at Mcdonalds to buy this lens, saved every cent. No regrets. Now I need money for the Canon EOS R camera...
Work another 3 years and by then the EOS R mark II will probably match the Sony A7RIII.
No way. How tf would anyone hire you when you were 11? Also the lens was only announced a few months ago, so I guess you have a crystal ball, too ;P
... and now he has the lens, but no body to use it on. No 14-year old is this dumb. ...
Hahaha
Well I worked as an investment banker in Mongolia from when I was in my mother's womb, and now I'm 3 weeks old and I bought two of them.
This lens is simply STUNNING... best zoom ever? Yes!
With IS this lens would have been more expensive, bigger and heavier...Please stop complaining, this is a great new lens design, and it's pretty rare in the camera world.As a professional,I like the fact Canon use the mirrorless design to unleash quality lens designs, and not just reduce the size.
Jean-Baptiste Casasola thank you! I look at all the film cameras from the past and see that they never had any form of stabilization. I started to realize that the weight of the camera plus the photographer, is the stabilizer. I’ve been shooting dslr for years and never realized that none of my cameras ever had stabilization.
@@SoPoetIQ37 The reason film cameras got away without stabilization is that they're so damn heavy. A mirrorless, even with a lens like this, is going to be too shaky when handheld. It was absolutely the right decision to not get OIS for this lens, but it was absolutely the wrong decision to not put IS into the EOS R camera bodies.
@oliver roozen that’s true. I believe my statement mentions that, but I’ve shot Dslr for years and never had a stabilizer built into the body, i now shoot with the eos R with a grip and I phenomenal shots. I think the world is so UA-cam fed and tech hungry that if something doesn’t have a “feature” then it’s the biggest disappointment. Photography is an art form that requires an artist. I never heard of a paint brush trying to paint for the painter.
@oliver roozen I also shot a wedding with the eos r and the RF 28-70mm f2 lens and it made the camera heavy, however, the build of the eos r was able to handle it so although it was heavy it was perfectly balanced so I never got an ounce of shaking at all! So heaviness doesn’t mean a lack of stability on canon cameras at least.
I am curious to see how this performs on the R5 or R6. Now that the new Canon Bodies are out. I am just about to purchase a R6. But am conflicted between getting this 28-70 or getting a F4 zoom and few(3) F1.8 Primes.
What did you decide? It'll perform the same/better in every respect on the R5/R6
@@willherondale6367 I went with the 28-70 f2 The color and sharpness seem better than any F1.8 prime.
This lens will be awesome for the next iteration of Canon R with IBIS!
IBIS results in sharper brighter images without the bulk and weight~
Srs tho, I can't believe how sharp these 28-70 f2 and 24-105mm f4 are. Canon stepping up in the lens game again.
I think this lens will be the 'go-to' lens for many Canon shooters. Shame about the price tag and the lack of IS, but I'd certainly have it in my arsenal.
And 28mm
In theory maybe; but in practice it's probably too heavy, bulky and unconfortable te be a 'go-to' kind of lens
Edoardo Fioretto - Would have been nice to see a side by side of the 28-70mm on the R and the 24-70mm on a 5D to see if the body size offsets the lens size by enough to wash that argument. I would think it would at least by enough to be worth the added stop and sharpness. But then you have the argument of how the 5D is still a better overall camera for events due to the dual cards slots, not to mention the R is crippled for burst shooting, not to mention the control schemes (5D has a thumbstick, R has a control ring).
And what about the 24-70 on the EOS-R? Smaller, lighter and equally sharp, at the cost of one f-stop. I can only see this 28-70 f/2 in very specific situations and not as a 'go-to' lens.
I rather shot with a fast prime. A Leica Noctilux only has a 60 mm filter ring.
Dear Tony,
I have been shooting Basketball 1.Liga for many years. It makes little sense to work with Aperture 2.0. Then I could take a fixed focal length with aperture 1.4. A sports photographer will prefer to increase the ISO. With that, all full-size cameras are clear today.
Prefer two fixed focal lengths in the luggage as such a heavy part, with little scope of the focal length.
i am still waiting for your detailed review of the 28-70mm f/2 lens with Canon R5. more details are required from you. The sweet spot of this lens needs to be identified in terms of f spot.
So this lens has no wide end (28mm is not really wide, it's standard street focal lenght) it's super heavy (1400g vs 800g (2.8 version)) and not stabilised.
Sure some people will find it usefull but I would rather have 3 faster primes and keep the weight of my hands
Hi Tony, why don't you compare the 28-70 to the 24-105 both at f4 for sharpness?
Compare both at/around f9 or f11. Doesn't make comparing them at f4.
@@borg_uk doesn't make sense comparing two lenses with different apertures. It doesn't matter if it is f4 or f9. Of course around f9 it will give you the maximum sharpness, but what you want is a relative comparison not absolute.
Wouldn't adding in camera sensor stabilization be a greater advantage than an f2 lens vs an f2.8?
I have it. I’m a nightclub shooter who is a new owner of the r6 and it’s ideal for any low light shooter imo. The results you get with this is pretty much what you’d get from primes except you need one body and one lens. Why pay 3k for this? Well why not? The lenses will generally outlive the camera so over the lifespan of a camera I would’ve paid for this lens 3 times over by the time the shutter gives out. It’s weather sealed so I’m not worried about people spilling drinks and splashing my equipment. It only makes sense if you’re a working photographer and that’s what this type of gear is made for. I’m getting tack sharpness at f/2 and super sharp at f2.5 with 2 people in the frame who’s faces are close together out on the same plane. And at f2.8 I can get 3 with the right labe plane positioning. It’s a stretch but it can be done. To be on the safe side you can do f3.2 or 3.5. I also received a few laughs and surprised looks from people who noticed the size. And right now I’m the only guy on the scene with this large lens so it’s becoming my trademark look. But after a few weeks of using it I have no regrets about spending the money on it. This is the Thor’s hammer of photography and run and gun workflow. Because of the diameter size and aperture range I can let more light into the lens at lower ISOs as well. What I’d normally use with my 24-70 adapted lens at ISO 640 and 1200 I can do with ISO 250-640 and expose the ambient lighting of the venue in the background with varying brightness being from little to none. And with the speedlight settings set lower I’m also able to shoot more low light events on one set of AA lithium batteries. I was halfway on my fourth event before I had to change them out. It’s been a dream so far. I’ve gotten used to the weight as well so it isn’t that heavy anymore. It was a as Kyle daunting at first but I adjusted
Same thoughts on the lens, three years later?
@@BruceLeroyUK yes 👍
@@MrJustwatchin9👍🏾😊
Tony sports photographers like myself will not care if it is stabilized. We shoot at 1/1000 sec where image stabilization is meaningless and may actually slow focus acquisition. My Canon 24-70 f2.8 is currently my go to lens for shooting basketball under the net. .
Thinking about eliminating my 35mm f1.4 Sigma Art, 50mm f1.2L, and 24-70 f2.8 ii for this! Would you do this?
Definitely considering this lens! Could definitely be something I use for the next 10 years, as the EOS R system is just getting started.
This lens is insane!!!! It can potentially replace all prime and zoom lenses at this focal length. F2 is definitely wide enough for even indoor sports. I’m used to shooting indoor sports with a prime but that limits my composition. I’ve always lusted the zoom’s functionality, but is still shooting prime because of the f-stop difference. This is gonna be a game changer! Even though I’m no longer a canon shooter, this will probably get other manufactures making similar lenses.
Are you shooting at 70mm or less. I would have thought that you'd prefer a longer focal length to get closer to the action.
This is what I actually thought when I saw Sigma 18-35 F/1.8. Do I still think it can replace 24-70? No. Well it lacks telephoto end but the F/1.8. At this point you start to think about weight, cost, and other aspects. No it won't replace all primes and zoom lenses because they all have their pros and cons.
I agree, if I were a Canon shooter I would be all over this.
Certainly a good point! Until you realised you are shooting a Canon R, that is.
Lucid_OnLooker lmao when the alphas first came out, we were complaining that they have good cameras but terrible lenses. At least canon is putting out great glass before great body, which is the right move. I don’t expect canon or Nikon or Panasonic to get it right on their very first camera, but it’s good to see them going on the right direction
Years ago when I got into Canon the online forums complained and complained about the Canon 28-70 f/2.8 not being wide enough so Canon developed the 24-70 f/2.8 which is an awesome lens. Fast forward to 2018 and Canon reintroduces the 28-70 and not a 24-70? If 28mm's wasn't wide enough, remember? You mentioned in some of your Canon EF lens reviews that 24 was a better focal length since it was a bit wider. Seems like one step forward and two steps back to me.
I really like 24mm on a lens, I wouldnt get a 28, but thats just because of my needs and preferences. I also like the sharpness of sigmas arts over cannon anyway, hahah
A non-stabilised lens that costs $3000 for a non-stabilised body that costs $2300... Canon has no shame, that's for sure.
They will add IS. First they want to sell as many of these as they can. When sales fall off, they will add IS.
liteoner you can afford to be arrogant when you are at the top. Look at Apple.
Canon behave just like 10 year ago in all there shine and glory.
Canon have to realise their golden era, when they define prices, has gone. Tamron and Sigma 24-70 2.8 stabilised aren't seriously lacking. Adding Sigma Art 1.4 for bokeh - overcome everything Canon f/2.0 can give.
This blindness just heart industry - I dont want Canon disappear because they produce lota of interesting and rare glasses
have you seen the market share lately?
You're less likely to need IS at f/2 though.
Well done Tony. A 20 minute video squeezed into 11 minutes....
Happy to hear about the new 24-107. I ordered the kit even though I already had the original 24-104L for the smaller size and the ring. I’m happy to hear your experience with it! Thanks for your thorough unbiased reviews Tony! :)
I was searching for exactly this video! Thanks. Looking forward for the video about the 24-105 mm as well.
Looks like the perfect lens for very very very high end wedding photographers that will buy it once Canon has higher end model in 2020.
Yeah now that R5 adn R6 have IBIS, this lens practicly gets 8 stops of stabilization
@@davidhrzenjak Still not going to replace the 35 f/1.4, 50 f/1.2 or 85 f/1.4 primes.
10:37 "You gave us a pro lens, where is the pro body?" 2 years later, the R5 and everyone's jaw is shut.
The R5 is the highest selling camera on the planet.
If there is no stablization in the lens, and no stablization in the body. I will definitely go to the EF lens instead.
What EF lens? There is no F2 EF zoom.
Another quality video. Thanks for explaining the benefit of f2.0. I did not realize that there would be such a big difference in the amount of light going from f2.8 to f2.0. I shoot a lot of basketball at high speeds and low aperture. I have the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 but don't use it much for basketball. I pretty much only use the 70-200mm f2.8. Sometimes a 300mm f2.8. Once Canon comes out with a high frame rate mirrorless, I will get that instead of a 1Dx Mark II. Hopefully the second generation of this lens will add image stabilization and we will be good to go.
Got this lens. No regrets. Paired it with the RP and called it a day. In effect, I have ‘primes’ in my camera between 28-70mm. The weight of the lens alone provides an on-board stabilization (sort of).
I get the convenience of the zoom lens but that is a tough price tag to swallow combined with the high weight & size. Yo can get 3 excellent prime lenses at f1.4-1.8 covering those focal lengths. I think at $2000 it would make a killer must have lens but at 50% higher it is a tough call. I think for weddings/events it would be a fantastic fit.
7:20 - 4 times the area of a full frame sensor is still less than 6x6 medium format. The smallest common large format starts at 4x5, or a bit less than 16 times the area of a full frame sensor. You'd need a 4 stop advantage at full frame to equal the equivalency you've stated.
Big THANK to you Tony for your one more excellent review! Much appreciated! Wishing you and your whole family all the very Best always! /Greetings from Sweden!
i think this lens, paired with a 85 or a 135 mm would be a staple lens system for most of the fashion and wedding photographers out there. A beautiful lens with a not so beautiful price tag.
Please test the earlier version of the 24-105 F/4 lens with the new one that comes with the Canon EOS R.
3 plus pounds, no IS. Great for (strong) wedding photographers in dark halls, but I'd rather shoot primes (which are lighter and far easier to hold, faster, generally sharper and typically have IS) and change lenses when I need to. Sounds like a brilliant technical achievement, but without IS or IBIS and so so heavy to hold (and then there's the price), something of an aardvark.
Hello,
This lens (Canon RF 28-70mm f/2L USM) is sure heavy and hefty. But the quality is amazing. Shooting at f/2 (not even f/2.8) for up to 70mm opens a great variety of possibilities with one lens!
On a practical side, is there a cheaper option for Canon RF lens, which would be may be a bit softer at a higher stop (zoom) but still a good enough option for closeups and landscapes alike? Thank you for your reviews!
As a photographer i dont understand the big fuss about in body stabilization. Esp on any lens that is below 100mm. The only time ive never notices camera shake is in low light and on a telephoto to begin with. So not having Is on this lens which is the standard length i use on a daily basis isn't a problem. to me it seems like people are getting lazier and not putting in the work to handle the equipment to get a good photo. come one people shoulder presses and holds work those muscles.
Looking forward to the 24-70 / 24-105 comparison. That's a hole in the current Sony A7Riii kit since the GM seemed a little soft.
I think people are generally overreacting to the lack of IS in a lens like this. It's an F/2, and the focal length is maxed at 70mm. I don't think it will come into play that much considering it's likely use. I'm not saying IS isn't valuable. I just thinking people are putting WAY too much emphasis on it.
Can you adapt the 28-70 to Sony Alpha E mount?
wondering same thing
Interesting to see the new R5 will have IBIS :D that should help make up for no stabilisation on the lens :)
Yeah totally. Wonder what the price of the R5 will be
At first when I seen the specs on this lens, I was all in. But then seeing how big it is, and especially the weight, I definitely don't want to use this as an all purpose travel lens! It's huge, and weight as much as a 70-200 f2.8! I used to be all for functionality, no matter the cost (size, weight, etc), but after travelling a lot, size and weight really do matter. Isn't that the point of having a zoom, one lens to do it all? It kind of defeats the purpose when that lens weighs as much as two. Oh well, great lens otherwise Canon.
This is a beautiful lens, the extra stop is very useful, I still have my Canon 28-70 f2.8 L I bought in 2000 before Canon brought out the two 24-70's F2.8, I used it all the time for weddings with 400 ISO Fuji film, if the person conducting the wedding let me take photos during the ceremony I'd be in AV mode with fill flash, that would still only give me f f2.8 at a 30th, so this new lens with extra stop would of been very useful at the time and yes I survived without image stabilization.
Fabulous piece of equipment. Nice one Tony, looks like you did a lot of work.
Hi Tony, do you thing that the EF 24-105 f4 II is better than the Sigma 24-105 f4 ?
Control ring is my favorite feature in this new mirrorless camera.
When they bring out a pro body then this system will be the cats nuts with the control ring lenses. For now I'm waiting in the wings to see what develops before I spend.
Well...Sigma has in production a SUPERB 24-35/2 lens some two years ago...which can be mounted in any "mirror" or "mirrorless" camera. It is also smaller and with less filter width. Now that Canon has jumped in the f/2 boat i would like to see Sigma produce a pair of 24-50/2 and 50-135/2 for the ones that can appreciate such a combo.
Isn't F/2 is too shallow for shooting moving people/sports? I would think that one would stop down to F/2.8 at least, which kind of defeats the purpose of having F/2 in the first place?
Keep hearing how these fast apertures can save the day in low light situations irony is I also keep hearing about the excellent high ISO performance of virtually all new cameras, this could be a factor for 20x16 or larger prints but how many people print to that size, (those who do are mostly pros using medium format).
The thing is, IS can make a difference of up to 5 stops, so a good stabilized f2.8 lens can do better in low light than this f2 lens does.
I think this lens is a toy for people with a lot of money who want ot show off and don't have to care about actual performance and practicality. It's huge and heavy, which means it is bad for long hikes or mountain tours, takes a lot of space in your camera bag and draws a lot of attention which is not always ideal when you want to photograph people as a reporter or wedding photographer.
IS doesn't help for moving subjects though.
For wedding, I don't think it matters. Often we carry 2 bodies anyways and often one with a big white 70-200mm f2.8. People will notice you regardless.
When I was working in newspaper, we use 1D and 5D series bodies. They are big cameras. It is more about giving respect to the subject than trying to be "sneaky"
Sure, if you want to go on a hike or holiday, then it may not be good for you, but then this is why we have got the 24-105 IS.
DeletedDelusion , learn how to shoot mate. IS doesn't help in the reak world of moving subjects. IS is typically turned off or reduced for sports. I have the fabled 24-70mm f2.8 Lii non IS, & I dont miss having IS ever.
Wtf u buy this lens to get more shallow depth of field and that’s about it. If u can’t shoot without ibis or IS what do you think photographers were doing 3 years ago. Get a grip fucking gear psychos
@@jonpremosch2896 also a whole stop lower ISO
For $3000 I want this to go to 24mm... and be made of platinum. With lens elements made from diamonds. You can buy a Sony A7iii + Tamron 28-75 f2.8 for $2800, and it will have IBIS, and all the other features that the EOS-R is missing. So... who the hell is going to be buying this?
People who like Canon
If someone buys a $3000 lens that only works on a new camera that's inferior to the competition and only has a few other native lenses available for it, that all also cost way too much, just because they like the company that makes it, then... they're fucking morons and deserve to get ripped off.
Professionals.
People who are patient enough to wait for R5 or R6.
Thank you Tony for this review! I wish this was the first review that I watched today, because it would have saved me 8 hours of my life. The video was very informative and helped me make my final decision. Thank you! Please keep up the hard work!!!
At 6:50 - 7:24: f/4 -> f/2 = 2 stops, same as MFT -> FF, same as FF -> "large format sensor"....wait what? Where can you get a large format sensor? Large format refers to film size 4 x 5 (inches) or 127 x 102 mm, or higher, compared to FF (36 x 24) or 0.28 crop factor. Current medium format sensors are 44 x 36 (used by Fuji, Pentax, among others) and 54 x 40 (used by Phase One among others). Micro 4/3 sensor is about 22 x 13 mm. APS-C (non-Canon) is 28 x 16 mm.
So, micro 4/3 to FF is slightly larger change than FF to the larger MF sensor. Way smaller than "large format".
Interesting statement about the 24-105/F4.0 since, that has a nice zoom range, and, to be honest, you don't want F2.8 or F2.0 all the time (since you have to focus dead on otherwise you miss the focus). I don't see the extra value over my EF 24-70 lens... in real life, I doubt you notice it.
Is it really better than the only other zoom for EOS R?
If you test the Canon 24-105 F4 please test it against the new Sony 24-105 F4 and the new Nikon 24-70 F4
Is this lense still worth buying if I already have the 24 - 105 RF?
Since he really had a limited hands-on, I doubt Tony really did a light transmission test. Sure, it's a F/2 lens, you'll get f2 bokeh. But f2 light gathering? As in you will get a full stop of extra light compared to a f/2.8 lens? Doubtfull, especially since that monster is full of glass elements.
With that said, this is the piece of tech I am most interested in the EOS R system. I can understand the enthusiasm. The first generation of cameras is underwhelming though.
I'll check this. I have all the test shots I need, I just forgot.
Can you please compare the 24-105 mk II EF to the RF? 'm really curious of how they compare. And please, give us also some shots with the new 50mm f/1.2
Hey Tony, i thought the sweet spot was f8 before diffraction occurs?
Heard a lot about how BIG this lens is, but didn't really take it in until now when I realised, 95mm filter size.. that's the same as my sigma 150-600c.
Good video Tony, thanks. Have you also tested the new 35 mm from Canon? I am planning to buy the EOS r together with the 35 mm. so I'm curious about the results.
didn't Tony contradict himself about two weeks ago about the 50MM f/0.95 lens for E mount? Also, I believe Sony said at Photokina there isn't anything to this throat diameter stuff with regards to their mount - (the 16-35MM f/2.8 E lens is the sharpest in the industry isn't it?)
looking at the price, might it be cheaper to carry 2 bodies with a wide prime on one and a telephoto prime on the other for most work that might require an f2 from wide to tele?
I've been wanting to upgrade from apsc to mirrorless FF - I'm used to the sigma 18-35 & 50-100 f/1.8 zooms so I dont really want to go for primes if I upgrade. This lens is that sweet that I might even hold of another year to see if the competition can make something comparable to this or until canon makes an improved version of the eos r with sensor stabilisation.
Tony hello there, please help me between lens 70-200mm RF or 28-70mm RF better?..
Hello Tony! Could you make a video mentioning the IQ of the 24-105 and the 50 as well? Thanks in advance!
I heard the stabilized version will be coming out next year
In the cutaway view of the lens that shows the internal lens elements, it sure seems like they could have reduced the outer bulk of the lens quite a bit.
I’m waiting for this review. Thank you Tony & Chelsea
Any thoughts about the lenses included in GFX-50R bundles for similar uses as the one reviewed here?
Is there ant 28-70 f2 sample shots , shot at f2.0 that we can download?
would like to see how it stacks up against the cheapo Tamron 28-75 f 2.8 for the sony a7riii
"2 stops is like going from FF to LF" - Hmmm, I agree with a lot of what you said there but that one was a stretch, even in theory. What LF digitals do we have? More like going to a proper MF sensor (6x6)... again, if we had one... which we don't, but that would have been a better comparison. LF would be around 4-6 stops better than FF.
Hi Tony I'm new to your channel and I just got my first camera I need your help. My sister's graduation is coming and i need some advice I have the canon eos 80d whith lense 18-55mm and 75-300mm lense what do you sujest me to do I hope you can help me tank you.
You missed to comment the chromatic aberration, which are stronger on the 28-80/2. And Bokeh, colors, contrast+resolution. Sharpness is not everything.
Anyone order this and is still in backorder?
Hi Tony, sorry I take to long to flow you guys, but I try to get the most information possible before I start spend money in a camera, it’s going to be my first oficial camera, I always used somebody else or when I was filming take some shot for my ex boss, I’m watching every scenario possible to make the right choice, I see the lenses are spectaculars and I know for fact the lenses always you can use in the future, the cameras is other history at the end get old and you replace with something new, but the glass still perfect, I said that because I’m a cinematographer and we replace cameras over the years, I start with film, so, the lenses still amazing. Anyway my first question is what is your choice or your best selection form the then3 ring, aperture, iso, shutter speed.
And my last 2 short questions, do you recommend an M6 as a second portable camera to have.
Reading about the new canon R, if come enough Pro after listening to the cons of the first mirrorless, so can have body stabilization and compensate the lenses this lenses,
Don't know if it was the first 28-70mm F2.0 or not,but the original 4/3 Olympus (14-35mm) is also a super performer!
Been saying this since the eos r reveal. The 28-70 f2 is the best part of the eos r to be honest. Why aren't other people (cough Nikon) making new, amazing lenses? Oh well.
The link for that giveaway does not work.
I had a chance to play with it for several hours at a local launch event. Stunning image quality but the lens alone weighs nearly 1.5kg. I don't find it practical on a long day of shooting where endurance is key.
Wow, this is the type of lens you switch platforms for. It almost makes primes lenses in that range redundant.
It took Sony 3 years after the launch of the a7 to come out with standard f2.8 zoom. I thought it would take Canon and Nikon about the same amount of time but then BOOM. Canon releases this f2 monster.
Sony was a mirrorless pioneer. Canon had the advantage of knowing what works and what does not for mirrorless systems.
No image stabilization in camera or lense and there goes the light advantage when you have to increase the shutter speed to compensate for the shake
so its big , heavy , cost 3k , and all you get one stop , you can get 2-3 primes (f1.4~1.8)for that money .
mb2006 , you prefer to be swapping lenses @ events ?
@@nordic5490 two bodies - two primes, occasional lens changes. Done.
better to have this or the 24-105 rf?
canon R series like R5 and R6 have five-axis In Body Image Stabilizer - which makes it redundant to have it on anything below 85mm
Can some one do comparison between RF 24-70mm vs RF 28-70mm at low light shooting and overall ????
I'm going to guess that IBIS will be in the pro-body, hence the lack of IS in this lens. And I'd also be willing to bet that Canon will create a companion f/2 lens similar to the 70-200, but maybe slightly shorter focal length to ensure the size remains sensible. A 70~135mm f/2 would be fantastic for portraits (maybe a little longer).
Hey Tony, love your reviews. Just wanted to mention Sigma's 24-35 f/2. It's not a 28-70 but it is an incredible f/2 zoom so Canon is not the only one with super fast professional zooms. Based on the cost alone I WILL NOT buy an unstabilized lens to use on a body without IBIS. Why was IBIS left out? The answer is simple, if you want IS you buy a Canon lens and make more money for Canon!
Looking at the photos the f2 lens on my screen is better than the f4...am I missing something ???
This lens is the only reason I will purchase a Canon R camera.
No with the nikon you have ibis. So you do not need high iso except for some situations
What's the beef about the single card slot?
Enjoyed your review. looking forward to the 28 to 70mm -- someday....it's a true beauty. Will go well with my R3 -- Chris Cox, Texas USA
Great Review ! (As always )
Any update on the full review of the Z7 ?
As nikon user i couldn't ignore that all the image samples out of the EOS R with the new RF lenses looks a league above the Z7 images with the Z lenes.
I guess it is the glass but the really is sad for Nikon...
It reminds me of the 85 1.2 where there’s a lot of heavy glass for the af motor to move, in the end i have to sell it coz it is painstakingly slow to focus.
Speaking as a high school sports photographer, that lens would be a joy. I'd love another stop of light. But the body, no. The continuous shooting modes are simply too slow. 5 FPS just don't cut it.
Hi Tony, I have Sigma Art 18-35 f/1.8 lens which is a crop sensor lens. I think I can use it in Canon EOS R body with adapter, what would the equivalent focal range and aperture in FF body?
Niaz Mahmood dude that’s a cropped lens. Why are you putting it on a ff body it’s gonna vignette like crazy.
Idk why canon doesn’t just scale their 24 mp aps-c sensor to a ~60 mp ff sensor and put it in a mirrorless body. It would be awesome to combine ultra high res with ultra sharp lenses